No-everything else is NOT hypocricy, because he did something deliberately, and he did something different, as has already been pointed out.
I’m curious about your personal opinion. The law states that there has to be a seven year gap between retirement and appointment. If he had retired a few years earlier this wouldn’t be an issue. Would you object to any former general for the post? At the time of the inauguration he will be retired from the military for 3 years 11 months. In your opinion would the additional three years make that much of a difference? Do you have any other objection to him beyond the 7 year issue?
I too don’t understand the objection to Mattis. Mattis should be the sort of experienced, rational, factual rock of stability that you’d want in a Trump administration. The opposition to someone like Mattis, at this point, from the political left, is starting to sound like the obstruct-for-the-sake-of-obstructing stuff we saw from the GOP against Obama.
I wasn’t aware of that, every story I read never mentioned that she had a clearance.
I just skimmed a number of stories and none mentioned it, she is identified as his biographer/mistress.
I found one reference on FoxNews that identified her as a former Army Reserve officer with no mention of rank or level of clearance.
I disagree. I do not support DeVos because she is a known enemy of public education. I do not support Mattis because of the principle of civilian control of the military. I do not support Sessions because he is a flaming racist. I do not support Mnuchin because he is a hedge fund pirate whose bank foreclosed on a 90 year old woman over a 27 cent underpayment.
I think there is a good point to having a civilian being in ultimate charge of our military, and I have my doubts that anything less than 7 years(although 10 would be preferable for some, in my opinion) is enough to give a military lifer a civilian outlook.
Don’t be ridiculous.
There is no way she knows what the state abbreviation are!! 
There are those in education that are looking forward to her appointment-The for-profit education industry.
Ok so he did something different. Then it’s not hypocritical on either side since it’s a completely different situation in both cases.
If you place both cases under the umbrella “mishandle classified information” then you have to either say that it means neither can be trusted with sensitive information or at least it’s a limiting factor, or both are inconsequential. If you pick and chose due to party affiliation you are a hypocrite.
If you truely want to look at them separately then look at them realistically.
Patreaus exposed classified information to someone who had a Top Secret security clearance but who did not have a need to know.
Clinton had classified and other sensitive information on an improperly secured server that could have been potentially at risk of being hacked.
Neither instance was earth shattering. Neither put the country at great risk. Both showed poor judgement. Personally I put Clinton’s actions in the negative column. I never thought it disqualified her for president but I felt it showed poor judgement. As for Petraeus, I think it should knock him out of consideration but there are other choices that could be worse.
A civilian is in ultimate charge of the military. Currently his name is Barrack Obama.
Thanks for reminding, maybe a nice paper cut with some lemon juice?
I guess it’s a good thing Harry Reid got rid of the filibuster, or else like-minded Democrats could really pose a problem here.
The intent quite clearly is to have a civilian in charge of the day-to-day running of the Department of Defense, not merely having the commander in chief be the civilian oversight.
It should be added that Petraeus denied retaining or passing on classified information in interviews with the FBI, until the FBI executed a search warrant and found his notebooks in his desk. Say what you want about Hillary Clinton’s server, but the Petraeus denial of wrongdoing is right up there in the same league as “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
Hillary Clinton denied pretty heavily at first, too: 'Meet the Press' video skewers Hillary's evolving email alibis
ETA: “security inquiry” will always be one of my favorite phrases, thanks to HRC.
So logically I expect that you will oppose him as much as you opposed her, for the same reasons.
Right?
I don’t want Petraeus at State. I think he’d be a bad choice, precisely because of the poor judgement he showed with his affair and mishandling of classified information.
Agreed. I believe that Mattis is capable of staying in his lane and many of his non-combatant commands make him qualified for the administrative aspect of the job.
Agreed and as I said it I don’t believe he is a good choice because of what he did and pled guilty to. It’s ridiculous to have a Secretary of State that has to report to a parole officer.
I’m probably not the only one on the board but I worked for Petraeus. My unit was directly attached to MNFI (Multi-National Forces Iraq) headquarters. The chain went from my commander to the MNFI Chief of Staff (2 star) to Petraeus. I saw him pretty often in the Presidential Palace. The command culture he built did not endear him to me. Obviously on my level I didn’t deal with him directly. I did have to deal with his aides and his secretary. His secretary thought she was wearing at least 3 stars and had people afraid for their careers. His aides were all entitled assholes. They sneeringly threw their weight around because they worked for “P4.” When he left to take over CENTCOM it was like night and day. GEN Odierno ran a much different command. Same secretary was no longer a tyrant. His aides were good officers that were pleasant to work with. No one complained about working for the Iron Giant.
On the other hand by all accounts Petraeus was very good at the political side of the job. Working with foreign governments was at least as important as military strategy. He literally wrote the book on counterinsurgency which emphasized the need for political solutions and how military operations impact politics. I think that without the baggage he might have been able to do a decent job as Secretary of State.
When that becomes Donald Trump I think it would be a good thing to have a SECDEF who is not afraid to say “That’s a stupid idea Mr President.” Say what you want about Mattis, he is not a political toady. He will speak his mind to the president even if it goes against what Trump thinks or what is coming out of Bannon’s mouth.
…[insert subject]
You sound suspiciously like a supporter of a certain candidate.
I heard she thought she could have affairs with veterans. Petraeus has already been burned by that.