Hec,

then why did Broadwell write P4's other mistress a VERY threatening email?

For irony, I like this article from Nov 5: "General Petraeus' Rules for Living" : [link]

then why did Broadwell write P4's other mistress a VERY threatening email?

I don't know, but I'd guess that she probably still had feelings for him and was warning off the other woman. She might have only broken up with him because she understood that having an affair as CIA director was considered way more compromising than having an affair as a general.

As Stephanie notes, affairs are not uncommon in the military and tolerated. In spy biz, they create exposure.

Nov 5th! Wow, Raq. That is interesting timing although I have no idea when it may have been submitted compared to when it was published. She certainly was writing about him up to the last moment. Can't say the rules are half bad though.

She is writing another book about him! And apparently she still needs to finish her dissertation - which is about him.

Yes, I know about affairs in the military - despite their code of conduct that they aren't supposed to have affairs, blah blah. I am just struck that someone who had a distinguished career in military intelligence could have behaved so rashly as sending a threatening email message. It just seems extraordinary.

Broadwell also very much enjoyed the access she had to him. She kept in close contact with him when he became head of the CIA - in ways that his CIA staff found puzzling. Oh well. One for the books.

I feel badly for P4's wife and sons, and for Broadwell's husband and kids.

This is the thing that makes me nuts...he was a good leader, should have been a 5-star general (if we actually bothered to DECLARE war anymore instead of just waging it), by all accounts was well-respected and liked at the CIA, and like most of the leaders we tend to admire, had at least one affair.

To me, the part that DQs him was all the judgment issues that come into play because he had to hide the affair. The use of gmail probably wasn't exposing CIA computers, but using an account that exposed his address book was dumb.

I felt this way about Clinton also - I couldn't care less if he was schtupping Lewinsky, but I was concerned that his attention was divided when he should have been thinking with his big brain, and I was really disappointed that he lied about it.

At least Petraeus didn't lie and did take the responsibility.

So far the craziest thing I've heard about it: One of my developers said "The Onion broke this story two months ago, but the mainstream media covered it up to protect Obama prior to the election."

It just seems extraordinary.

That's why it's such a juicy story!

It'd be like the King of England giving up his throne for some American divorcee.

So far the craziest thing I've heard about it: One of my developers said "The Onion broke this story two months ago, but the mainstream media covered it up to protect Obama prior to the election."

Wow. Did he really mean The Onion, or was he confusing them with another site? Not denying the crazy, here, just trying to define the exact level.

He really meant The Onion. I asked.

What Kalshane said.

Raq, I think that there are some questions raised about his military leadership. By all accounts, there are areas in which he excelled, but as I understand it there are some tactical problems with his leadership that probably could be discussed thoroughly.

Nevertheless, the way he conducted this matter does speak to some judgment issues that may reveal some deeper issues that the US public may not know/ever know about.