My wife is having an affair with a government executive. His role is to manage a project whose progress is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership. (This might seem hyperbolic, but it is not an exaggeration.) I have met with him on several occasions, and he has been gracious. (I doubt if he is aware of my knowledge.) I have watched the affair intensify over the last year, and I have also benefited from his generosity. He is engaged in work that I am passionate about and is absolutely the right person for the job. I strongly feel that exposing the affair will create a major distraction that would adversely impact the success of an important effort. My issue: Should I acknowledge this affair and finally force closure? Should I suffer in silence for the next year or two for a project I feel must succeed? Should I be “true to my heart” and walk away from the entire miserable situation and put the episode behind me? NAME WITHHELD
What would you tell him to do?
The NY Times said to not expose the affair in any high profile way. Ooops. Guess that happened anyway.
I'm bothered by the fact that the New York Times has anything resembling an advice column.
ReplyDeleteWhy would he put his shit out there in an advice column? I would tell him to man up, put his big boy underpants on and deal with the situation. Divorce her if that's what you need to do. Fucking weenie dude.
how do you know he wrote that?
ReplyDeleteHoly crap! I would probably have assumed that he was just being dramatic, and that the project was something like the expanding to include Saturday games. If I believed him, or knew what the real issue was, I’d probably tell him to coo his jets and wait for the project to be completed. He doesn’t really seem to mind/be suffering. Otherwise would be different.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to see their actual response and reasoning for keeping quiet
ReplyDeleteI read the whole column on jezebel or gawker earlier today. Sorry:( can't remember with but possibly both!
Deletehe could have quietly divorced her (as he should have) and not written the letter. i agree that he wanted to put it out there so maybe she would realize he knew without actually acknowledging it.
ReplyDeletealso SERIOUSLY? why did he have to resign? i mean look at Clinton. he was doing it in the White House and he got to keep his job.
the only reason she was trying to hack his email account was to delete letters back and forth between them; not that she was trying to steal any top-secret information. she was trying to cover her own ass.
Sounds like the hubby cared more about the government executive's career and project other than the cheating wife.
ReplyDeleteFor anyone on mobile who can't click the link ... here was the response given in the NYT:
ReplyDeleteDon’t expose the affair in any high-profile way. It would be different if this man’s project was promoting some (contextually hypocritical) family-values platform, but that doesn’t appear to be the case. The only motive for exposing the relationship would be to humiliate him and your wife, and that’s never a good reason for doing anything. This is between you and your spouse. You should tell her you want to separate, just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman. The idea of “suffering in silence” for the good of the project is illogical. How would the quiet divorce of this man’s mistress hurt an international leadership initiative? He’d probably be relieved.
The fact that you’re willing to accept your wife’s infidelity for some greater political good is beyond honorable. In fact, it’s so over-the-top honorable that I’m not sure I believe your motives are real. Part of me wonders why you’re even posing this question, particularly in a column that is printed in The New York Times.
Your dilemma is intriguing, but I don’t see how it’s ambiguous. Your wife is having an affair with a person you happen to respect. Why would that last detail change the way you respond to her cheating? Do you admire this man so much that you haven’t asked your wife why she keeps having sex with him? I halfway suspect you’re writing this letter because you want specific people to read this column and deduce who is involved and what’s really going on behind closed doors (without actually addressing the conflict in person). That’s not ethical, either.
Yes, but the premise is he made himself vulnerable, ie she wldnt be dangerous but someone else might. I too hv doubts the husband wrote the letter, or the nyt has advice column. Was this"project" her book? Cos thats not really so important. I too wld hv quietly seperated, or just told her i knew what was going on. Once again, powerful man bought down by the little head. Men. Interesting species.
ReplyDeleteSaw this last night on FB - Bill Weir/Nightline posted this and asked if we thought this was from her husband. Though there's been no confirmation that the husband actually wrote the letter, it sure looks that way.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think it's rather pathetic that he was more concerned about his wife's lover than himself and his own marriage.
He wrote it. Not because he wanted advice. No man is okay with allowing his wife to be with another man. This was written with the intention of revenge and shame. He wanted to come out on top and get sympathy. Calculating. Makes me wonder why she started the affair in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI know I'l get creamed for this, but why would he have to resign for having an affair if he was doing a good job?
ReplyDeleteNo you won't msgirl. I'm unclear as to what one has to do with the other unless she was going all Mata Hari on the guy.
DeleteMy thoughts exactly. How many of them DON'T cheat would be a better question.
DeleteShe just wanted in on all the government's alien secrets. Can't blame the lady. I just want to know what they are hiding in there!!
ReplyDeleteThis guy seems like a pushover, he needs to grow some balls. You know your wife has been having an affair for the past YEAR and you write into the New York Times advice column of all places looking for a simple, non confrontational solution?
You pretty much gave this chick a hall pass to give everyone free handys.
He wrote this letter knowing that certain circles would connect the dots AND it also sounds as if the husband benefits from the affair professionally.
ReplyDeleteAnd the irony of the NYT giving advice considering the people behind the paper.
THanks for posting the response @KaySea
ReplyDeleteI think he had to resign because it left him open to blackmail, also it's rumored that he gave her access to some high security stuff that she shouldn't have seen. And why people didn't worry about Bill Clinton being open to blackmail is a mystery to me.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's also a rumor that since he was supposed to testify before Congress next week about the Benghazi mess, this would get him out of having to reveal under oath some embarrassing stuff about what the administration knew. Not sure why he won't be testifying now, he was director of the CIA when it happened, so I think he should testify anyway, but I don't know how those things work. All I know is now he's not testifying on Tuesday.
Exactly SusanB! He won't have to testify now. The affair is merely a scandalous convenience to cover his gross incompetence with what went down in Benghazi. He messed up big time and well never know the truth. He will live fine on his government pension as a reward for his misdeeds. So common in govt.
DeleteI read the profile of the wife in the Times, and she seems like a real see you next Tuesday. Like the kind of person that ALWAYS has to win. I am on team husband-I think he needed to do this to get a shot at custody. When I read her profile, I felt sorry for her kids. She seemed like the sort who thrives on perfection, and God help those kids if they aren't perfect.
ReplyDeleteYep yep...totally agree.
DeleteHe actually asked Yahoo! Answers first, then Ask Jeeves.
ReplyDeletePretty sure the CIA director brought himself down by having the affair.
ReplyDeleteI feel like he was too scared to confront his wife so he wrote this letter hoping she'd read it knowing it was her. He probably slipped in some clues that only she could identify.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it, Petraeus was head of the CIA. The biggest covert operations organization in the world. If the guy couldn't even keep his own affair secret... I mean, what a dope. Writing explicit emails on his work computer? Even I know better than that.
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing sounds fishy to me. I would've assumed that a leader in such a critical government organization could've quietly stepped down, regardless of the reason. They could've given us some lame excuse like he wanted to spend time with his kids or whatever. Why so publicly hurt this guy's image?
ReplyDelete@WW That is so true and yet funny :)
ReplyDeleteSounds like a passive-aggressive way for the husband to let his wife and the adulterer know that he knew and hoped they would stop.
But isn't the NY Times columnist rather rich for scolding the husband's intentions since they decided to print the letter in the first place? They didn't have to publish it, did they?
ReplyDeleteThat said, people in the political world will sell their first born if it means glory for them personally. This should not come as a shock to anyone.
They did this story on the West Wing in season 4.
ReplyDeleteSorta OT. Hot tip that I read on a tech site:
ReplyDeleteIf you use your own laptop or cell phone to access the Internet or send e-mails while at work, through the company's (wifi) servers, the company CAN access everything. Because you are using THEIR connection, despite using YOUR own phone or laptop. So the point is, if you're going to surf on company time, make sure you have a data plan and access the Internet that way.
He's a little shit. Love him. ♥
ReplyDeletePeople in political and/or diplomatic circles are every bit as cutthroat and devious as show biz celebrities are--probably more so, actually, since the stakes can be so much higher. There's just something about the husband in that picture that makes me think the advice column letter was meant to be a passive-aggressive shot across the bow to either let his wife and her lover know that he knew what they were doing, expose them to others who might connect the dots, or, probably, both. I feel bad for Holly Petraeus, who seems like a nice enough person, and all the children involved, no matter what their ages, but the cheaters ought to have their thick skulls smacked into each other to knock some sense into them, and the wronged husband does need to put on his big boy Underoos and kick his wife out, which is what he should have done all along. (Oh, and adultery is an offense that can get you court-marshaled in the military, although I'm not sure if he still counts as being a member of the military or not.)
ReplyDeleteWhat the hell is wrong with people? Is that bit on the side really worth wrecking your life and that of way too many others? The sex can't possibly be that good, can it? *SMH*
On Leno last night he warned the guys in the audience that if the head of the CIA could not get away with having an affair, that all other guys were screwed if they tried.
ReplyDelete@sherry I posted my previous comment as sort of a joke, but I really do believe that's the reason Obama accepted his resignation. Who cares if the guy was having an affair? Is anyone shocked that one of the most powerful men in the world has a mistress? No. Eisenhower had a longterm affair with his biographer, in an eerily similar turn of events.
ReplyDeleteIt's the fact that the guy is head of US covert ops, and he couldn't even manage to keep his own affair from blowing up in his face. How's he supposed to run the CIA if he doesn't know better than that?
@WW: ITA. Hence my reference to Mata Hari. If she used the affair to compromise national security and he could only see through the one eye on his dick then we gotta whole lotta trouble here. Sadly I committed my cardinal rule of doing more research to understand the story before I commented. If however those emails were all mushy about her lovin' ON A WORK computer then who's to say how reckless he was behind closed doors. One can only imagine the worst because anything else would be irresponsible.
DeleteThe whole thing is odd to me.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama wanted to clean house of Republicans for his second term, he could have just asked him to resign. The Benghazi clusterf*ck would have been enough of an excuse, no need to blackmail him over the affair.
I don't see how him no longer being head of the CIA prevents him form having to testify. If anything, I'd think he could claim Executive Privilege ( provided he does report directly to the Prez?) if he were still Director. And he says he is not testifying, so it can't be that he wants to spill the beans and resigned because of that.
I think it's odd that the husband wrote the letter to the NYT. Almost like it was pre-planted.
It's all weird, but that's why they call them spooks.
One thing that's also left out is that its Chuck Klosterman's -- who is a somewhat famous gen-X sports and cultural essayist -- advice column.
ReplyDeleteNot that it matters much, but it isn't like Chuck is a super hard-nosed Dear Abby type, so if anyone is getting up in arms about the NYT publishing this they probably shouldn't. This is just the type of meta thing Chuck would go for: publishing a question of which the ethics of publishing the question would be questioned.
Finally, it hasn't been proven yet that this was written by Broadwell's husband.
We know who wears the pants in that family. I hope he gets custody.
ReplyDeleteThat is, undoubtedly, the most passive-aggressive thing I have ever seen.
ReplyDeletei don't understand this story!
ReplyDeletewho cares if he has an affair except his wife? why resign?
The reason he has to resign is because by having an affair -- which was documented within his personal email -- he put himself in jeopardy for blackmail by hackers. Given the sensitivity of the position of the head of the CIA, an affair is simply unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteExtramarital affair + *internet age* + high ranking government job reliant on trust = just won't work.
The explosion of the internet is the key factor in why he needs to step down and why situations like this prior to 2000 were not under the same scrutiny.
@Nola it isn't an advice column its a column on ethics.
ReplyDeleteLet me say, I love that the column writer saw right through what the husband was trying to do and called him out on it.
I 100 percent think this is her husband and he was trying in a very passive aggressive way to expose the affair publicly.
It is customary for everyone to resign after a re-election. I'm not sure why, but it just is. He could have just handed in his resignation with every other cabinet official and leader in the administration and no one would have said anything. Something else is going on here.
ReplyDeleteThere was/is an FBI investigation, and yes, Petreus apparently got a little bit sloppy in his behavior because of this affair. Time will tell what the exact definition of "sloppy" turns out to be.
As for Benghazi, as the Bush administration showed us, you can ignore a Congressional subpoena if you damn well feel like it. There is no means of enforcement for them. I think that once the full investigation on Benghazi is finally done, it will show massive confusion and not necessarily incompetence. I think there was an issue with the 'chain of command' there. Hillary is trying to take responsibility as Sec of State since it was a diplomatic location, but others are saying the Pentagon screwed up since it was a military location, or maybe it was the CIA since it was an intelligence matter. Either way, Petreus resigning will have almost no impact on the investigation.
I agree with others, the husband pulled a pathetic move. How hard is it to look your wife in the eye and say 'I know'. You don't even have to fight, just say that and let her squirm.
@:| raven |:
ReplyDeleteHmmmmm, he was the Director of the CIA, and it's not an elected post. He was in charge of how many spying this country does, as well. He opened himself up for blackmail. She tried to hack his account and drew attention to herself, and to him. This is not behavior you want involved with the SPY chief for the country ruling the world. By resigning, he proved he was up for the task but couldn't pass the muster. I admire him for doing that much. He flunked, and no one working under him could have respect for him for what he allowed to happen. She can say what she wants, but she was hacking his email account, one filled with secrets of the world. She is a writer/reporter and what she knew or didn't know was a danger to every one living in this country and to more than a few around the world. Resigning is the minimum he could have done to relive the stress of this situation. He now has to explain in honesty what he talked about with this woman while he was laying in bed with her. Part of the reason he was promoted to this position was because he was a stable family man, one who could not be touch with blackmail of sex, nor could he be thought of as passing secrets while in the throes of sexual pleasure.
Why would you find it bad he resigned? He earned respect back by doing it as opposed to fracturing the CIA and our safety. This isn't a game. Fooling around on your spouse is though, and that's why it is called fooling around.
Adults left fooling around when they said I do. Adults take oaths seriously, like I do at a wedding and I do when you're sworn into office. Bad people left in public office has blunted this simple fact, and your reply concerning it only reinforces this theory.
He's not dumb. He wrote that letter to expose his wife and her lover. He's passive-aggressive in the worst way. The NY Times called him on it.
ReplyDeleteI want to know why she was hacking into the general's email accounts. What was up with that?
Oh you guys are usually so smart according to Gawker she was going on his email account and leaking classified info THAT is why he resigned
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@lelale
ReplyDeleteIt wouldn't have mattered if she was leaking info. The fact she could, or had the ability to leak info would have been enough for him to lose his job. Some of us are still that smart regardless of your opinion.
Oh, Entwood. Shame on you. The essence of this event is so much greater than what you have selected to post. But, now that you've attached sex to Benghazi , perhaps it will be better publicized and your readers (aka, researchers), will pay attention to this ???? and get the real news. Just, pathetic .
ReplyDeleteHaha, I know it's a Perfect Stereotype Storm, but I love FrenchGirl's response!
ReplyDeleteGreat comments by all here. This is one best comments I have seen here. Everybody has been adult here and being Civil.
ReplyDeleteThis whole mess reminds me of Watergate with a breakin.This this situation is where we have 4brave men fighting to live and keepiing our freedoms intact.
What will this be called.
A cover up with sex.
My husband just asked me if the "other woman" was his biographer because he hadn't heard the whole story yet, and when I told him yes, he said he had seen two really weird interviews w her -- one on the daily show, and one on Charlie rose. At the time, he thought she was way over-the-top gushing about him, and had even mentioned "working out" with him. If even a tv viewer can notice red flags like this, then it sounds like she was very indiscreet. What stupidity!
ReplyDeleteShe was also on the Daily Show, right? We were watching and I told my husband to mark my words because someday we are going to find out they've been having an affair. She was totally unable to hide it!
Delete@lakeuniongirl, yes, one interview with the biographer was on the daily show...I have to watch it bec my husband was saying it was super creepy!!!
DeleteOn a purely shallow note, the husband is hotter.
ReplyDelete@Agent **it- people see what they want to see and the truth about Benghazi is not one of those things. As long as the media keeps ignoring it, no one will see anything wrong with the situation.
ReplyDeleteButterKwup, but, now that there is a sex scandal attached to Benghazi, perhaps the media will now pick it up and not ignore it? I am a dreamer...
DeleteMen are so dumb sometimes.
ReplyDeleteGen. Patreus + his biographer
Sen. John Edwards + his videographer
I'd really rather have the media focus on keeping tax cuts for under $250K income earners and letting the cuts on income above $250K expire than the B.S. of trying to tie Benghazi to an imagined cover-up of a sex scandal of someone who was considered a hero up until yesterday.
ReplyDeleteWe've learned the lessons of Benghazi -- we need more protection around the globe and the revenue to fund said protection.
But, of course, that's not a sexy story.
krk67, what we need are journalists, not media? I agree with your financial assessment. But "we've learned the lessons of Benghazi". Not sure that most of us have learned or heard the entire story. You are correct, it is not a sexy story but the media will assess it that way, no?
DeleteI feel bad for the husband.
ReplyDeleteI know General Petraeus is no longer in the military, but for the record, adultery is a punishable offense in the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). When I was still in the Navy, I knew two guys who were demoted in rank after cheating on their wives. One of the guys cheated with the wife of another sailor; he had to be on restriction (couldn't leave base for 6 months) and had to pay thousands of dollars in fines.
Well here's something interesting.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the Washington Post, this "scandal" was triggered by the fact that the biographer sent threatening e-mails to a woman she thought might expose the affair. The woman then went to the FBI.
Here's the link to the story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-probe-of-petraeus-triggered-by-e-mail-threats-from-biographer-officials-say/2012/11/10/d2fc52de-2b68-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost
I don't care what or who the General did in his spare time, but he was the director of the CIA and you have to keep pretty clean to avoid being blackmailed, so it was good that he resigned. Looking back in the comments, it looks like someone already posted this.
ReplyDeleteShe's pretty, and is anyone really surprised by this? I hate the monogamous, "moral" facade we put up about sex in this country. Men have needs, and often times their wives are too busy with the kids, jobs, cooking, cleaning, etc to satisfy their sexual needs. At least the French and Italians are realistic about this sort of thing.
Let the conspiracy theories continue. As an Obama supporter, I say, "Bring It On!"
If the husband wrote the letter, it's possible he was most concerned about was intelligence-gathering and the leadership necessary to get U.S. troops fully out of Iraq and Afghanistan? A project important to all he wouldn't wish to jeopardize?
ReplyDeleteIf he had left her quietly, with those interviews raising eyebrows, wouldn't that also have put the CIA director into the political rumor mill once word got out?
Or did FBI investigators write the letter to see how Paula Broadwell would react, and rush to delete the emails, if that is what happened?
Would you feel more than a little vulnerable and in need of advice if you were a person standing in the way between a top spy chief/general and his mistress? I would feel a tad insecure and want advice.
Hubby needs a therapist for his co-dependent, passive-aggressive antics.
ReplyDeleteWhy did the Director of the CIA use his work computer? Just stupid. He should be fired for his utter stupidity, if nothing else.
ReplyDeleteForgot to mention this reminds me of the affair the ex-GE CEO, Jack Welch had with his now, current wife. That was a huge scandal for GE. Especially since she was a journalist too.
ReplyDeleteSusanB, correct ! But it is not gross incompetence on his part. It is pathetic what these people went through, the Navy Seal is a hero, among others. This is politics, as usual,and it is shameful.
ReplyDeleteSpHoukdnt we be referring to him as
ReplyDeleteDavid Betrayus now?
Hahaohoh
Ah, conspiracy theories. Can't win an election, but they sure can spice up the interwebz!
ReplyDeleteI went to med school with the husband, Scott. I view his letter to the NYT as like a consult to the ethics committee. He didn't know what to do and probably felt like there was no one to confide in. Doctors can be very isolated because of our work hours. And yes, I can see him suffering silently. It's what we're trained to do. (remember, I knew him 20 years ago).
ReplyDeleteThe NY Times issued a statement that this is NOT the husband. I don't quite know how they figured that out though.
ReplyDeleteThe Times has denied the letter is from the husband and not all the details add up, but hey Enty, don't let facts get in the way of b.s.'ing people who won't know you're completely misrepresenting reality.
ReplyDeleteWhat Anna said: I think the FBI wrote the letter to the NYT under pseudonym to see if Dir. Petraeus and Mrs. Broadwell would react to it.
ReplyDeleteThe husband wrote to the NYT or somebody/some organization did it in his name (to stir up stuff), they re definitely alluding to this story.
ReplyDeletePetraeus and the lady are grade-zero spies considering how badly they covered their tracks and used technology. Instead of attending West Point, they should have gone to The Farm...
Finally, I don t like men who cheat on their wives of 37 years, but when I look at Mrs. Petraeus, I see a grandmother and not a woman while Mr. Petraeus is still a man working and working out at high level. That s a big divide for a couple. And when you see pictures of her young, she was gorgeous.
I would not be surprised to learn that she leaked the classified emails from 9/11/12 about Benghazi to Fox News. I believe I read she went to West Point and was in military intelligence previously.
ReplyDeleteI would not be surprised to learn that she leaked the classified emails from 9/11/12 about Benghazi to Fox News. I believe I read she went to West Point and was in military intelligence previously.
ReplyDelete@ iknowpeople : that s definitely a plausible explanation for this mess.
ReplyDeleteThere 's no conspiracy. There 's a huge trail of info re Benghazi. This is going to hurt. Badly.
ReplyDeleteJUST TO CLARIFY... She got into his Gmail account, not his CIA email account. My question is, why on earth would the head of the CIA even have a gmail account?!?!?!?!
ReplyDeleteP.S. She seems like a real nutbar!
If the NYT suspected the spirit of this inquiry was "unethical"why then why did they publish it? SMH, F'n media pretending to have a conscience.
ReplyDeleteThis started as a criminal investigation into allegedly harassing emails sent by Paula Broadwell **** to another woman ***** The identity of the "other woman" and her connection with Paula Broadwell were not immediately known.That "probe" led agents to Broadwell's email, which uncovered the relationship with Petraeus.....
ReplyDelete@K333 My guess is because it's too crazy of an accusation to NOT publish. If I were the column writer or even a publisher, I'd have printed it too: Voluntary, potentially really juicy info about an American official that is hidden in an advice column that if it doesn't pan out, no one remembers it. Even if this ends up being completely unrelated, look at all the attention the NYT is getting.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if someone at that paper actually decided to be a journalist and look into it further & figured out the truth and more. You could make a great book/movie plot right there lol.
This article has a ton of links within it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2231321/David-Petraeus-scandal-Emails-sent-Paula-Broadwell-second-lover-revealed.html
Thanks Agent. I was computerless all day yesterday, so I've been catching up on everything since last night. Do you know how much of a bitch it is to read a gazillion comments on the MV thread?! haha
ReplyDeleteAm I wrong to be fascinated by this story?
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've read, Broadwell went after the general. She worked on him for years AND ended the affair. She got jealous of the "other woman" and harassed her. No one seems to have taken the wife into consideration.
Also, it seems like the general has a history of affairs by some sources. This wasn't his first time at the rodeo by any means.
Two things - I am sure Gen. Petraeus and Mrs. Broadwell had an affair for the same reason everyone has an affair: they were in relationships that for whatever reason were not satisfying anymore. And they decided it was bad enough to risk cheating. Anyone who cheats, ANYONE, knows they might get caught and has already decided they are willing to accept the consequences. End of story.
ReplyDeleteAnd secondly - Benghazi was a horrible tragedy and does not deserve to be a political football. It has been reported the CIA asked media outlets to sit on parts of the story to allow them time to gather info and get other personnel who might have been compromised out of the area. Because, you know, we aren't supposed to be running black ops in allied foreign countries without their cooperation (even if it is a common occurrence). So let's mourn the loss of our people and move on. Sometimes things go wrong.
ReplyDelete"Jill Kelley is identified as the woman who received threatening emails from Gen. David Petraeus' paramour, Paula Broadwell. She lives on Bayshore Boulevard with her husband, Scott, and serves as the State Department's liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command." http://www.tampabay.com/
"A senior U.S. military official identified the second woman Jill Kelley, 37, who lives in Tampa, Fla., and serves as the State Department's liaison to the military's Joint Special Operations Command, where among other duties, secret drone missions are worked on." AP
Here are two current stories (as of 1:30PM CST)from the Associated Press:
ReplyDeleteBackground on Broadwell: http://tinyurl.com/b45rg86
Latest details about what happened: http://tinyurl.com/acrt23q
According to the Associated Press, Kelley was not one of the girlfriends.
Well, they sure didn't let that poor woman have any privacy, did they? Publishing the street and city she lives on/in?
ReplyDeleteWonder if there are more ex-mistresses? I don't think this is the general's first trip around the block.
ReplyDeleteThe Director of the CIA shouldn't be leaving himself open to blackmail by having an affair. What an idiot.
ReplyDeleteThey are well rid of him in my opinion.
My husband worked directly with him in Afghanistan. He is blown away about this scandel. I asked him why did he have to resign if it is just an affair? Hubby said it all has to do with TRUST. If you cannot TRUST the head of the CIA then who can you trust?
ReplyDelete