Nice. Please, no one register “Mormon Eunuch Android” until Mitt has a chance to. He’s going to have a lot of free time coming up.
Is that an engagement ring? And I assume Mrs. Petraeus is the on top, right? 
And what’s with “Lockheed Martin Ousts Incoming CEO”? I’ve not heard of corporations firing their CEOs for infidelity. Not even CEOs of religions organizations expect that; just ask Jimmy Swaggart.
Does this mean we don’t get to find out who was leaking military information to the media? Oh wait, Obama has been reelected, so that doesn’t matter any more. To quote Roseanna Roseannadanna, “Never mind.”
37 years of marriage. Damn shame.
Ms. Broadwell is married to Dr. Broadwell, an interventional radiologist, and they have two sons.
I wonder what Paula Broadwell’s husband thinks of this.
FWIW, I do think it’s terrible that both Broadwell and Petraeus’s careers are basically over just because they appear to have made a connection.
I certainly sympathize with the spouses of both, but they were apart for months, in a stressful environment, with people they were compatible with.
I won’t say I approve of cheating on your spouse or having an affair with someone who was married(which both Petraeus and Broadwell did) but those are relatively normal human failings, particularly when one considers the circumstances involved.
Paula Broadwell? Sounds like a Bond Girl.
Mona Luvzitt was already taken.
Someone in the other thread linked to the second letter here, which is rumoured to be from the husband.
That might describe Patraeus in July 2010, but not July 2012.
I don’t know if their careers are over. I can see Patraeus on several BODs, after an appropriate penance period. As for Ms Broadwell.. I can see several career opportunities for her!
Except that it’s not blackmail that’s the issue here, though blackmail could have been a problem for a guy that actually had qualms about coming clean about his affair. Petraeus’ problem was that his mistress apparently went all psycho hosebeast, “hacked” his E-mail or checked it when he left his laptop/phone/something unsecured, and harassed associates of his. That reflects very poorly on his dedication to security.
Lockheed Martin’s president was fired for “an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate,” i.e., dipping his pen in the company ink, getting his meat where he gets his potatoes, fishing off the owner’s dock, etc.
The fact that I could think of three hoary cliches while typing this post suggests that this has been frowned upon for a long time.
Let this be a lesson to powerful men everywhere. Only have affairs with emotionally stable people who don’t work for you, and don’t give them your password.
Fair point. Googling, the NYT’s says the person who sent the letter wasn’t the wronged husband, so I guess that’s the end of that juicy rumour.
Of course, if it wasn’t refering to Petraeus, the shocking truth must be that more then one important Gov’t Official is having an affair!
The explanation I heard was that his mistress started harassing a woman she thought was also having an affair with Petraeus, who reported it to the FBI. They found out it was Broadwell who was harassing her but thought that someone had hacked Petraeus’ email account when they found the hundreds of emails between the two. They kicked it up the line only to find no, Petraeus really was having an affair.
Were any rabbits boiled?
goddamn, this is an ugly conversation.
…a conversation where no one mentioned the Uniform Code of Conduct. being in his position and having an affair is not like you or i having one. it’s a waaay more serious infraction.
not to mention the fact she had access to personal contacts and was harassing them (essentially, there is legitimate fear this could turn into a national security issue).
there is enough data to conclude this was about the affair in and of itself, nothing hokey, nothing about Benghazi, etc.
to that end–what even COULD Benghazi have to do with this?
-
as i understand the Bngz “scandal,” it’s mostly a fabrication of Fox news that the attack was a pre-planned anniversary attack–one that would have happened no matter what, video existing or not, by Al Qaeda, and that the US covered that up–lied about links to the video–and did not respond (both “could have but didn’t” and then “CIA tried to, US said not to.”)
-
^all has been proven bullshit. CIA timelines show they were on the scene in 25 minutes and evac’ed survivors before the second wave. Pentagon timeline shows they put shit into motion immediately and got troops (something different than the CIA crew who first showed up) mobilized and on the scene. even Fox news admits no one was stationed close enough to get there before they got there–so now the “scandal” is “why weren’t we more prepared? why didn’t we have troops staged closer!?!”
oh–and in other threads, there were all these calls about how we had gunships and fighters nearby.
info release proves no, we did not. was not an option.
now–
at this point we have communications from the people who actually attacked. they admit it was 1. a one-time, spur of the moment attack, based on their outrage over the video and that 2. they have no on-going “jihad” with america–it was a lashing out over the video and 3. there’s a very tacit connection to Al Qaeda–some 12 of the 40 attackers loosely tied–it was not funded by, called for by, planned by, or orchestrated by Al Qaeda.
so now the “scandal” has dissolved from what the Fox News/GOP started with to whatever they can cling to–which seems to be at this point “we should have been more prepared.” that is not a scandal.
SOOOO.
what POSSIBLY can be surmised about any relation to Bengz to Petraeus?
he 1. would still have to testify, as subpoenaing him doesn’t become impossible after resignation
2. he’s already been pretty open about the investigation, releasing info, etc–there’s no with-holding of information that i can suss out.
3. there’s enough evidence to show the gravity of the affair in and of itself,
and
4. THE GOP WAS COURTING THIS GUY FOR A PRESIDENTIAL RUN BEFORE THE AFFAIR SCANDAL.
so GOP, before the affair, thought he was at least beyond reproach enough on the Bengz bullshit that they wanted him to represent them. now he has an affair, and the conspiracists shift platforms, call “conspiracy” and start their stupid retreat into the shadows to hypothesize.
so, ok–
what POSSIBLE conspiracy could there be about him resigning?
Thank you, dontbesojumpy. I was reading this on my phone at work and couldn’t respond.
Adultery is a crime under military law and rules of conduct. This is a major part of the reason he must resign from his position at the CIA.
He is now retired I believe, but this conduct from a high ranking military officer is not acceptable under the rules he lived by for 37 years of miltary service.
In this day and age, I would think he might be blackmailed if he had NOT boinked a woman that attractive.
They could technically prosecute him, but it would never happen that they’d prosecute a retired general for adultery under UCMJ.
The more likely reason he resigned is that his clearance was revoked. It’s not just about blackmail. He would have been required to report anything that could negatively impact his clearance eligibility and presumably never reported that he was having an affair. If that was one of the questions on his clearance and the answer changed from not having an affair to currently having an affair then he was almost certainly required to report it.
One issue I’ve heard mentioned is that other CIA officials have been asked to resign when they were found to be having extramarital affairs. It’s a general policy not something Petraeus initiated, but if he was allowed to stay on, it would be sending a message that the top guy is immune to the rules that have been enforced on his subordinates.