Posted in: News

Paula Broadwell’s Husband Wrote To An Advice Column About Petraeus Affair [Report]

Paula Broadwell's husband pens advice column for help?

Did Paula Broadwell’s husband turn to an advice column months ago regarding his wife’s alleged affair with General David Petraeus?

Chuck Klosterman runs an advice column called The Ethicist for the New York Times. The July 13th edition of this column includes a letter from an anonymous reader and cuckolded husband, seeking ethical advice on how to deal with his wife’s affair.

In the letter’s author details his wife’s affair with a “government executive” whose job “is seen worldwide as a demonstration of American leadership.” There’s no love lost between the letter’s author and said government officials, praising him as “gracious” and “absolutely the right person for the job.” The author asks if he should acknowledge the affair or keep quiet to protect the reputations of the parties involved.

Gawker thinks that this anonymous letter may have been contributed by Paula Broadwell’s husband. We already know that she was Gen. David Petraeus’s biographer, and that the two spent a lot of time together, including jogging side by side. The author also says he has “watched the affair intensify over the last year,” matching the Wall Street Journal timeline (the affair began in August 2011, lasting until “several months ago”).

Chuck Klosterman responded to the author, saying:

“Don’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 affair ended quietly until Gen. David Petraeus cited it as the primary reason for his resignation as director of the CIA just yesterday. If this letter was penned by Paula Broadwell’s husband, it’s interesting that he seemed to follow Klosterman’s advice and stay quiet about it.

Klosterman’s response also included an interesting indictment:

“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.”

It’s also possible that Paula Broadwell penned the letter herself. You know how some people are so racked with guilt that they find semi-anonymous ways to confess (So I have this friend … it’s not me, but this friend is in trouble and needs advice … what should I tell him/her?).

Of course, this is all circumstantial at this point. But we’re still interested in what you think: Did Paula Broadwell’s husband turn to Chuck Klosterman’s advice column for advice on his wife’s affair with Gen. David Petraeus?

Articles And Offers From The Web

Comments

27 Responses to “Paula Broadwell’s Husband Wrote To An Advice Column About Petraeus Affair [Report]”

  1. Thomas Dixon

    Paula Broadwell is a despicable person. As a veteran of two wars and 26-years' active duty, I make this judgment based upon her background and knowledge aforethought. http://www.penguinspeakersbureau.com/speakers/page/paula_broadwell Mrs Broadwell's entire life experience before being "embedded" to the Headquarters in Afghanistan with the General involved ethics, morality, and reinforcement of government rules, regulations, and consequence. For all her accomplishments and awards, Mrs Broadwell decided that her life's actions needn't be constrained by anyones' rules, nor did possible repercussion to persons in positions of trust hold any value. She is embodiment of the worst type of leader – one who demands adherence to moral codes and societal norms, yet disregards any personal accountability. Despicable. I only hope when she stands before her God to answer for the decisions in life, she has a better response than "I'm so sorry. I didn't know how much damage it would cause."

  2. Andreager Tamika White

    I'm interested in knowing what your thoughts are on the General???

  3. Thomas Dixon

    Thanks for your interest, Andreager. My regard for the General is even lower than Mrs Broadwell. For four years now, we have suffered realization that persons holding the highest positions of trust in the nation consider lying as matter-of-fact and, therefore, truth to be irrelevant. In a nation founded on God's law (the Ten Commandments) in which truth is the crucible for right and wrong, how can acceptance of flexible values strengthen its agreements with others in the world or its own citizens? Short answer is: it cannot. The result, of course, will be its demise as a superpower and a credible nation.

    Whether they be president, elected official, military officer, religious leader, or common citizen, individuals must adhere to core principles and follow through with acceptable behavior in order to stand in the light of truth. The General's entire life was built upon reverence for position and evidenced by strict adherence to the rule of law. At every promotion point in his career, he was regarded as a prime example of core values and given authority to lead others and demand the ultimate sacrifice (death) should conditions warrant. The General's year-long liaison with a person who progressed through the same military system and clearly understood not just the rules (Uniform Code of Military Justice), but the INTENT of the code, along with violation's impact on those with trust of their lives, neutralizes every right decision in the past.

    That is precisely why we citizenry place our trust in someone and allow them to hold positions of power. Because we believe that the appropriate decision will be made in those instances where no-one knows except that person and God – we believe they will make the RIGHT choice. The General willingly and purposely chose to violate the peoples' trust for his own ends. How can I now be sure that he will not follow that same path in the future, which could result in others' death – your child or mine or some other parent's. Further, how do I know now that there haven't been past indiscretions (not just sexual, but in leadership) if this current blatant disregard of principle exists? No, General Patraeus lost my respect even moreso than Paula Broadwell.

  4. Anne K Johnsonn

    I think she wrote the letter. I just don't see a radiologist doing that.

  5. Cathy Elliott Jones

    Mr. Dixon: I appreciate your service to your country. But you must stop repeating the lie that the United States was founded on the Ten Commandments (the Christian God's Law). Please consider:
    1. Christianity is not mentioned in the Constitution, and the First Amendment bars all laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and protects “the free exercise thereof.”
    2. Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton were outspoken about their dislike of Christianity: “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” ~ Jefferson
    3. The Founders were Deists, not Christians. Deists believed in God but didn’t necessarily see him as active in human affairs. The god of the Deists was a god of first cause: he set things in motion and then stepped back.
    4. Conservative ministers were furious that the newly-ratified Constitution lacked references to Christianity. The Rev. John A. Mason called the lack of references to God and Christianity “an omission which no pretext whatever can palliate.” He predicted that an angry God would “overturn from its foundations the fabric we have been rearing and crush us to atoms in the wreck.”
    5. The Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1797, stated: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

  6. Anonymous

    thomas..please stop beileving in fairy tales…maybe you should actually read the bible and say to yourself..WTF??? this is what God is like? example… he allowed Job tortured and his 11 children murdered to win a bet with the devil…he killed evryone in the world including pregant woman (god favors abortion) to rid ofthe world of evil people (noahs ark)…he how did this work out for the all knowing God? not very good did it. i could go on and on

  7. Thomas Dixon

    Mr. petepetros: Request denied. I've learned to refrain from arguing with Progressives over the last four years. I assume you read my comments concerning Paula Broadwell and General Patraeus. Both must live with their decisions. Mrs Broadwell will answer to society if she so chooses. If not, then her own value system will guide the remainder of her life. As for the General, he has sworn oaths and decided to violate them. Those whom he commanded and others of his profession stand in judgment to his choices. As for the debacle at Benghazi, two under his command lost their lives following his orders. If prior decisions left them vulnerable and, later, available resources were not allocated for political reasons, he will be judged by the American people who's sons and daughters were given to him in trust.

  8. Thomas Dixon

    Cathy Elliott Jones Ms. Jones: As with Mr. petepetros request, I also will not honor your demand. Having considered your five points and others you chose not to list, I've found in recorded history that our forbears revered a Deity, as you put it. Based upon their incorporation of core values as evidenced by prayers in Congress before each session, they did not create a country devoid of deeply seated beliefsWithout a higher power to whom we answer, then wherein lies the validity. As exculpatory evidence, I'll only offer the demands made to their oppressor in their declaration and mention of the Creator's endowment.

    If your argument is intended to mitigate right and wrong on the actions of Paula Broadwell and General Patraeus, then you must school me on how the legal profession views oaths sworn by citizens. If, in validating one's promise to adhere to an oath, there is no higher power than the man who served it then where is the moral imperative to fulfill the obligation? The State? I think not.

  9. Cathy Elliott Jones

    Mr. Dixon, you're being stubbornly hard-headed now. Muslims worship a "Deity." Jews worship a "Deity." Sikhs and Hindus worship a "Deity." Buddhists worship a "Deity." Native Americans worship a "Deity." You did not have to look at our founders' "recorded history" — a mere six hours ago I told you they were Deists. What all seven groups I just mentioned have in common is they are not Christians. A "Creator" (probably another to add to the list of what the founders and those who followed them stole from the Native Americans) is not a Christian God. Period.

    My previous comment had nothing to do with mitigating the right or wrong of General Petraeus and Mrs. Broadwell, who is beginning to sound like an astronaut-in-diapers in training. You held them both accountable for their mutual betrayals, and I saw no need to address that with you. But, as an attorney and civil rights activist, I *will* step in with the truth whenever I see someone take another stab at revisionist history. And it would behoove to note a recent study: “'Love thy neighbor' is preached from many a [Christian] pulpit. But new research from the University of California, Berkeley, suggests that the highly religious are less motivated by compassion when helping a stranger than are atheists, agnostics and less religious people." Bummer, isn't it? http://newscenter.berkeley.edu/2012/04/30/religionandgenerosity/

  10. Terence Sutherland

    Ms. Broadwell got what she wanted from ret. General Petraeus; she violated his trust, but in the end, as Mr. Dixon says, "…she stands before her God to answer for the decisions in life…" May she burn in Purgatory for her actions.

  11. Anonymous

    Cathy Elliott Jones If you do not think this country was founded on Religious Belief's then you need to go back to school and re-learn history! Did you go to a California progressive school? How come in every court(since you are an Attorney) It says in GOD WE TRUST? How come our Money says the same? The problem with you progressives is first you have no respect for people that are older than you and risked much more then you can ever imagine! How dare you spew your BS to someone who helped make you have the freedoms you have today. I will take a retired Officers word over any Progressive who thinks her $h it doesn't stink. You are the real problem with AMERICA today! Sip your latte and pretend to be the know it all! Education does not breed CLASS!!!

  12. Cathy Elliott Jones

    Moron. You lost. Speculating about *me* will not change that. I was *nothing* but respectful toward a veteran who was nonetheless spewing lies. If you can't take it … were you one of those who threatened to move to Australia if Obama won? Don't let the door hit you on the way out of *my* country.

  13. Thomas Dixon

    Ms Jones: This our country, not a court room. Each of us is (currently) free to believe as we wish. Your "demand" that another citizen cease "spewing lies" is inappropriate, uncalled for, and wrong. Having been a police officer for 26 years, I am of the opinion that you've been a lawyer for too long. It seems you view interchanges of ideas as arguments. Most of us regular Joe's in this country try to understand another's point of view when communicating. Sadly, it seems you're above that and are always trying to prove that you're right. Although it may be key to your profession, it simply distances you in real life. Thank you for the information you provided. Good luck with your life out there in California.

  14. Cathy Elliott Jones

    Nice pivot attempt, Mr. Dixon. While you are entitled to repeat until you drop an "opinion" unsupported by *facts*, I am equally entitled to point out that the *facts* do not support your wishful thinking and willfully misleading statements disguised as an "opinion." It has been in a courtroom where the Bill of Rights is interpreted, and the Supreme Court of the United States (you know — that Third Branch of the government?) has the final word. *That*, sir, is our country, our system of government, and I do not care how long you were a police officer; if you "policed" without a fundamental understanding of the rights of others, I am glad you are finally off of the streets.

  15. Thomas Dixon

    Ms Jones: Obviously you did not read my reply to petepetros' comment, so I'll say it again. In these last disastrous four years, I've learned it is useless to try to converse with Progressives ~ they either argue or call you names. That you graduated law school and are an attorney is commendable; I respect the achievement. As for your pompous attitude – not so much. The comment about "understanding the rights of others" speaks volumes as to your regard for police. With all due respect, it's in our nation's best interest that you practice law exactly where you are. So far as I'm concerned, this is our final interchange.

  16. Debra Kress

    Seems interesting that her book has now skyrocketed up the charts. Sorry to be so cynical but it begins to look like she is a climbing vine for publicity. And what are the email to the other woman about? If this is the family friend, why go there?

  17. Gerri Williams

    On a personal level I believe that it's the most ridiculous waste of time to have to hear and read about someones extramarital affair when it should be a private matter between the persons involved. I do not believe that the general public really gives two hoots about this man's inability to be faithful to his spouse. If they do they have far more time on their hands than I do. As long as he is faithful to the responsibility to carry out his duties to protect our country and our citizens then he has the right to live his personal life the way he chooses. I do not agree with adultery under any circumstances, however I don't believe in judging others either. Clinton continued as president in the face of his scandal and manage to do some good for our country even if the majority of the country believed he lied. This man came forward and now they want to look at the possiblity of him facing military charges? That is crap. When is the government going to step back and get out of our personal lives where it concerns personal issues that are not criminal? If they are going to charge him they should charge anyone that has an affair. Or as noted above, leave our personal lives alone.

  18. Cathy Elliott Jones

    Dixon: Gloves off now, pal. With no respect at all intended — you got caught lying your rear-end off. And by a woman! And by woman lawyer! And by a California woman lawyer! In your benighted little world, what could be more humiliating? Do it again, and I will dog you again. Simple as that!

  19. Earl Swift

    I must say, I'm having some difficulty, Mr. Dixon, understanding your assertion that Ms. Jones has failed to understand your "point of view" on the question of whether the country was founded on Christian principles. Facts are facts. You, as a career police officer, presumably agree that they're necessary (though not sufficient) to establishing truth. Ms. Jones called you on your misstatement of history–she pointed out that you got the facts wrong, which you undeniably did–and for that, you brand her inappropriate and wrong? Help me out here, please.

  20. Cathy Valdiviez Baumbusch

    I don't think he should be judged either, but I do think the country has a slight interest in whether the head of the CIA can be compromised in such a way. He will only face military charges on adultery if it can be proven that he committed the crime while in the military (adultery is still a crime in the military). He also provided secret documents to the gal. Even if she had the proper level of security clearance (which has since been revoked, leading me to believe that she now is also under investigation) there is still the "need to know" factor.