The President’s being steamrolled into sacrificing Petraeus’ career
by the media seems incredibly naive, inept, and damaging to our best interests. That, or the value of preeemptively controlling potential Congressional testimony vice Bengazi and the flow of captured weapons into Syria, in effect side tracking it, trumps national security. Yes, this last seems cynical, I admit it.

However, as news readers fan the ratings flames by recounting salacious details, their efforts prove more effective than a sniper’s bullet on the battlefield. Simply put, taking out our best general, at a supremely important post, has national security implications.

The question is . . . do we select our generals for whether they keep their pecker in their pocket, or for their ability to cost us the fewest young men while winning the wars our politicians get us into? Moreover, as they subsequently bring their battlefield experience to service in covert security, aren’t they an even more valuable asset?

Politics and the President, his principles versus Petraeus and his pecker – has sex between consenting adults ever trumped politics? This was never about principle.