God help us all.

Give Barry a long and healthy life knowing who is third in the line for the presidency.

I agree with you Trollop, but than again this is reminding me of these upper level management businessmen are they that much different than what is happening here.

Amen Trollop. I also find it beyond ridiculous that this gets so much coverage. I'm just one voice but if my vote counts for anything, I'm not pursuing any stories involving Gen. Petraeus and I have to imagine there are many more out there who are doing the same. Even if it's not the vast majority, that doesn't mean there aren’t other, more valuable stories that would equally draw in the same vast majority and better serve them and all of us at the same time.

If Jesus was just coming into his own for the first time he would be called a socialist for giving to the poor and trying to bankrupt medicine and trying to put the fisheries out of business and being part of the Occupiers for disrupting the banks (money changers) oh yeah they would sacrifice him.

Well, I knew rock stars and athletes had groupies, but Generals??

Apparently, it is showing to be that way. But there is another point to this also when you think about activities that do go on in business which is not totally right to do either. Especially, when these Republicans and rich people worry so much about regular people wanting things as these Republicans and rich people have been so abusive in their dealings with people.

These Republicans and rich complain about regular people all the time, but they are far worse abusers of wanting things, especially when it comes to their egos and arrogance.

This was not a matter for public scrutiny. Nothing so far revealed indicates that either Petraus or Allen have violated any laws or injured national security. Woodward made a stupid spy novel point that affairs make servants in national security vulnerable to blackmail, but this in fact is ignorant. As far as the CIA is concerned, extramarital affairs are not a concern of the agency if the superior and spouse are notified of the relationship. So far we know that his Petraus's superior was informed by the FBI of the affair, but we do not know if Petraus had already informed him. If that violation was the basis of the recommendation that Petraus, then I fail to see why this could not have been done private notification to the intelligence committees and to Petraus's chain of command, with a public announcement that gave some other reason.

So Kearns-Goodwins point made this Sunday on Meet the Press stands. The careers of great leaders should not come to an end because of personal matters that are of no business to the public. Should Eisenhower have been court marshaled for his relationship with Kay Summersby?

This is just lurid nonsense that should not have been allowed to tarnish Petraus. I say that fully understanding that he could one day have political ambitions and could be a formidable foe in the GOP.

If it turns out that he exercised poor judgment on something that affects his job, that is one thing, but I simply don't see why any of this had to see the light of day, and why the press needs to dwell on it.

True JohnMesserly would have to agree with you, since everyone is human. The more important factor that would arise is the abuse of power and how it is going to affect people.

oncearepublican: if convicted mass murderers can have groupies, it shocks me not that Generals have them and are stupid enough to sleep with them.

But seriously John, you should start paying attention before you go off on your ignorant rants. The issues about this that really do matter and are getting lost in the media are not that these Generals had affairs, but that they lied about it; devoted name and title to using their influence to improperly influence a judge in a custody case; broke the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) and/or the CIA code of conduct; violated their oaths of office; and while claiming to have fidelity to God, country, and their wives breaching that fidelity!

I don't know about the rest of you, but I want the man holding the nations deepest, and yes sometimes darkest, secrets while being responsible for doing things that can't and shouldn't be made public for a very long time if ever, because to do so would compromise lives and possibly the safety of the entire country, to be at the very least faithful to his given words, vows, and oaths.

How they violated the trust placed in them is irrelevant. That they did so is the point that should not be lost. I don't care that he was sleeping around, I just care that he lied and broke oaths and vows. Because if a man can't keep a vow to remain faithful to his wife made in front of his God and everybody, I don't know how you can trust him to remain faithful to the country when said man makes an oath and/or vow to do so in front of his God and everybody.

I stand by my statements. The facts suggest the UCMJ was not broken since it appears the infidelity occurred after the General left the service. If Petraus did not inform his superior and his wife, then he broke CIA code. But we do not know either of these facts.

As for ignorance, you appear not to understand UCMJ article 134. This is not a blanket prohibition of adultery. The act must "prejudice the good order and discipline in the armed forces or was of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces." Article 134 offenses are ambiguous when the act was completely out of public view. For example if the gambling, cross dressing or adultery was unknown to others, the act could not influence good order and discipline.

Putting the letter of the law aside, consider the real world of immense burdens of leadership, huge egos, and human frailties. But none of this reality means anything to you, only absolutes matter. An action which has no practical impact on the leaders responsibilities to your mind disqualifies them. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with just how imperfect the people around you are. Have some very private talks with more people- take a job in management and deal with large groups of people focused on a common goal. Requiring perfection from team members is a typical expectation of green managers fresh out of business school. The real world requires more.

By your argument you would have had Eisenhower court martialled in the middle of World War II.

Brilliant.

I'm sorry, at what point does being human and having human frailties excuse one from taking responsibility for one's actions? Since when do we have to accept that because people are going to have flaws that they have to have this particular flaw? Since when do we have to give credence and due thought to the ego's of people in regards to calling them out on their BS? Knowing that people are imperfect doesn't mean it's acceptable to be imperfect in this fashion.

And no, I wouldn't have had Eisenhower court martialled. You're putting words in my mouth. Would I have trusted him as much? Absolutely not. And no sane person can say otherwise. If a person can lie about something they swore not to lie about, that legitimately calls into question their integrity. I live in the real world where we have to trust our leaders to do the right thing. And you can't trust a man who's job is to be that deep in the "Black Arts" if he is lying to the people that he is not supposed to lie to.

I am not following you on the legal portion. You said Petraus broke the UCMJ so should be tossed on that basis.

Assuming you are correct about the interpretation of the UCMJ article 134 is correct and assuming it was proven to a military court that Eisenhower was guilty of adultery, it seems to me you would have the same conclusion about Eisenhower. But you don't. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, it is just that your proposition is logically inconsistent. So either you have made a logic error, or there is some information you have not conveyed or I have misunderstood.

As for the trust question, you are correct that integrity is important and influences the degree of latitude that can be extended to an individual. But if no discretion is given to any but the most flawless individuals, our social system would rapidly devolve into autocracy. Further, these systems get populated by seemingly pure and righteous Lancelots and quickly devolve into corruption. The catholic church in particular has historically suffered from this cancerous assumption about human behavior.

Understand that I am not giving a moral pass on the behavior. That is between him, his wife and the authorities of his moral system. Nor am I giving anyone in power a pass on breaking laws or conducting affairs with reckless disregard of the vital interests of others- either as distinct individuals or in aggregate in society. Sandusky and Wall Street bankers deserved to be jailed and severely penalized on that basis.

Perfectly consistent, you just can't read the UCMJ. There is no minimum sentence for being convicted of adultery. The punishment includes the possibility of discharge, but it's not required.

Second of all, again you can't read what I said in my original comment, I was talking about both the men involved. The plurals are glaringly obvious.

Third, I'm pretty sure that I made clear, I don't care about the affairs. I don't care if they were womanizing leeches. I care that they lied, I care that they abused their position and power, I care that they, as people who are supposed to understand electronic security, were stupid enough to create thousands of pages of illicit e-mails that can be tied back to them in a simple e-mail header check!

This is why I called you ignorant, you see, but you can't comprehend anything that doesn't fit your narrative. You want me to be a perfectionist, but I'm not. You want this to have been a private matter that never reached the public, despite the very point of the constitutionally protected press is to make sure that these things reach the light of day, because until it reaches the light of day we don't know how deep the rabbit hole goes.

We still don't know everything about these cases. But we do know that a lot of things were going on that are not tolerable were going on. Things like the FBI agent who was initially contacted defying orders to leave the case alone and then leaking a classified investigation to the Majority Leader of the House, Eric Cantor, for political reasons! Then there are Generals Allen and Petraeus writing letters of good character for a crazy woman in a custody case. The crazy woman in question is the sister of the woman that General Allen is supposed to have had an affair with, Jill Kelley. Mrs. Kelley is the same woman Petraeus' mistress, Paula Broadwell, sent the harassing e-mails to because she thought Petaeus was cheating on her with Mrs. Kelley.

The fact that The Spy Master of the US was involved with such a botched undercover operation is bad enough, but not grounds for immediate removal. The fact that the man lied to people he's not supposed to lie to is cause for immediate and unconditional concern that could warrant removal.

At the end of the day in the real world, there is no distinction between an oath to be faithful to your mate and between that person's oath to be faithful to the U.S. Constitution and Government. If you can lie to and about one, you can lie to and about the other.

This is all sadly sounding more and more like a Real Housewives episode. Very very sad.

I agree with you TCinLA and I was there too. Republicans you have to admit do like to live in denial. Well, you do have to realize for people who have lived in an imaginary illusion for so long it does take time to really come out to face reality and sometimes they never can.

Did you notice, TC, that Greenfield never once mentioned race? Of course, he actually couldn't, because that would rip a giant hole in his tissue-thin argument. Sure, the Democrats had problems in the '70s and '80s because working-class whites fled to the GOP. But so what? Is the GOP in danger of losing the white vote? No. The GOP's problem is that it's only got the white vote. The Republicans have the inverse of the problem Greenfield identifies with the Democrats of the late '80s. I really don't see that working as a reason not to get cocky. Losing the Archie Bunker vote very probably has helped out the Democratic Party in the long term, and gaining it has doomed the GOP.

Can we please stop over simplifying very nuanced and complex things please? The Republicans did not just get the white vote no matter how you twist the facts. They have a major problem in that they only got a majority of one race, whites, but they got better than 5% with every race that voted. So that's the technical statement that they only got the white vote gone.

As another nail in that point's coffin, white voters are no more a monolithic pillar than black voters, or hispanic voters, or any other group of voters. Judging an entire race, even by it's majority, is a violation of everything we as Progressives and Liberals claim to hold dear. A person is judged by that person's actions and not by the color of their skin. And unless you want to start looking like the Teahadists of the left shouting out who is and isn't a real American while advocating for nullification on laws you don't like, I would ask you all to please, please come back to your senses and be the rational reasonable people you I have seen day in and day out on this site since shortly after Mr. Benen came to work with Ms. Maddow.

I think you're forgetting that if the Republicans don't make a deal, the tax rates automatcially snap back to where they were in the '90s. Democrats, including Obama, seem to be OK with that. And why wouldn't they? The '90s were economically relatively good times, and by the end the deficit was gone, only to be brought back by the very same Bush tax cuts that are set to expire. The Democrats can win just by doing nothing at all, so the pressure really is on the Republicans, especially since Obama just won a second term while campaigning on higher taxes. He's promised to veto anything that doesn't include new revenue, and he has no real reason to back down. All it takes is the political will to not blink before the end of December.

Budget negotiations? Are you sure? Is Obama going to submit a budget not that it is his 2nd term?

Monk, this is what I was referring to when I talked about bringing the top marginal tax rate back to 39% or 39.6% which is the exact rate we had under Pres. Clinton. After watching Ed, Rachel and Lawrence’s segments and reading several other articles out there on this issue, I feel much more confident that what you spoke about is exactly what will happen if Republicans don't agree to it beforehand. Like we both said, with the political will to not blink and stick with this, the will of the American people will be fulfilled.

Rusty, obviously there was enough of a budget proposal from Pres. Obama for Republicans to be railing against it the entire election. I'm sure you're a fan of cuts, so how about the over $1 trillion in cuts Pres. Obama not only submitted but has already put into place.

Jerold, really? The vast majority of Americans pay a significantly higher tax rate than the wealthy, who if they do it right, don't have to pay any taxes, which is why Mitt Romney never released his. Beyond this, if the 99% had to cover the 4% we're asking the wealthy to pay, it would result in kids not going to college, not going to the doctor and far too many other unacceptable sacrifices. If the wealthy step up and pay that 4% they will still have millions to play with and never have to know the burden of sacrificing their family’s health or education.

Jerold...

The 47% pay nothing, because the 47% HAVE NOTHING!!! How do you expect people who are homeless, or disabled, or barely surviving, or fighting overseas while their families barely manage without them, to pay more when they always have less?

The 1%, who keep their money in off-shore banks and refuse to part with a dime more than they have to, are sitting on TRILLIONS of dollars, providing them with income taxed at less than half what yours is.... They don't create jobs, they DESTROY jobs, by moving them to places where labour is cheaper, or just laying people off because they're demanding more work from less people...

Poorer people have to spend more of their income, so THEY are creating more of the demand... Rich people spend less, proportionate to their income, because they don't HAVE to...

The Republican/TEA Party keeps insisting on the destruction of public sector jobs, in preference for private sector jobs... as if there was absolutely no connection between the two...

Public Sector jobs are still JOBS! They teach your children. They keep you safe, They pick up your garbage. They run your prisons. They process your papers. They tally your taxes. They fight your wars. You couldn't continue to exist without them.

There's something else they do. They put food on their families' tables. They buy clothes for their children. They pay their rent or mortgage. They buy gas for their cars so they can get to work.

They buy cars, trucks and bikes. They buy small appliances to make life easier. They take their kids to ball games, concerts, amusement parks. They buy TVs, movies, CDs, books, magazines. They buy refrigerators, washers, dryers.

They spend money, the same money they get from their public sector jobs. Money that increases demand for goods from the PRIVATE sector.

When they get unemployed, they go on unemployment insurance, just like everyone else. Which adds to those unemployed numbers you keep arguing about...

Without public sector jobs, there would be a lot lower demand for private sector goods and services. Lower demand means fewer jobs, period! The private sector doesn't care whether the money they get is from the public or private sector. Just as long as they GET it!

Jst- they never railed against his budget, because he has never had one. Cuts, you haven't listed specifics, but in the campaign, he was listed as less than honest because he counts smaller expenditures in Iraq as cuts, etc.

Rusty

President Obama has presented a budget since 2009.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectionGPO.action?collectionCode=BUDGET

Go look for yourself.

Maria- you might have me on words- I did say submitted. He possibly might have submitted budgets. But, What you've given also doesn't say submitted. It is the budget message. Now, details of the budget message were put together, with the offer to make any changes to better reflect his budget message- and submitted for vote in both house and senate. Zero votes. Couldn't get a vote from a democrat or a republican.

I guess we will the economy go wherever Obama thinks he has a mandate. Seems he thinks he has a mandate to crash wall street now. And, unfortunately, main street will follow wall street. In cae, of course, his goal is to punish wall street.

Actually Rusty The budgets prior to the 2010 elections were past by the House but got bogged down in the Senate by procedural means by the Republicans. Which proves that even with a Democratic majority legislation like a budget can be stymied by out dated Senate procedures. The filibuster really needs to be reformed.

BTW Wall Street crashed itself in 2008. It didn't need President Obama to do that. Wall Street does however need supervision since it proved itself to not like act as adult and take responsibility for its own actions. Maybe one day you'll examine these interesting episodes of This American Life on how Wall Street shot itself in the foot and nearly took down the whole US economy in the process.

Giant Pool of Money

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

Another Frightening Show About the Economy

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/365/Another-Frightening-Show-About-the-Economy

Bad Bank

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/375/Bad-Bank

P.S. I grew up reading The Wall Street Journal and Fortune. Also nowadays I read The Economist whenever I can.

I might add that it was Wall Street working with Washington that brought the economy down.

And, if you are honest, you will find that it was a truly bipartisan effort. Both sides worked equally hard to screw it up that badly.

Rusty

I do not mean that Democrats are wholly exempted from fault. Repealing Glass-Stegall was a big mistake I do say I saw some really F*up things going on from 2003 on. It was like seeing a really bad accident about to happen and have no way to prevent it.

I remember Thanksgiving 2007 I told my sister-in-law's mother (a real estate agent) that I thought we were heading into a recession and that the real estate market would crash. She thought I was nuts. Guess who was right.

Yep. Every night was a "Flip This House" or other of same ilk. All of them showing zero principle mortgages, etc to make the cash flow. It was nuts, and it seemed like everyone wanted in on it.

Rusty

Exactly what I was thinking at the time. Did anyone think they could not pay the piper? Even that schmuck Jeff Lewis on Bravo had to change his tune

Give up Billie boy the Tea Parties over!

Wish I had said that. I agree completely. Well said.

Jerold, I've read and understand the Constitution quite well, but thanks for the suggestion. Why so smug and defensive? If you've got something constructive or critical to say, then say it, and spare me the condescension.

tell me why a dope like you deserves some respect.

tell ME the SAME...

'Ignore'...

OK Jerold, I admit that my post was condescending, but only towards conservative media outlets and those who consume from them uncritically; certainly we've seen the emperor has no clothes, and it seems valid to point that out. Do you have anything to contribute to the conversation, or are you all about being rude, spiteful, and trying to quash any attempt at discourse?

Westmoreland became Chief of Staff of the US Army after Tet. That's more like a promotion than a sacking.

They are too busy picking and choosing which votes to count.

They are also too busy making sure some votes don't count.

Indeed let all the taxpayers pay for it. All for smaller Federal government my ass!