huh???
Newser) – Of all the stories sure to follow on the the David Petraeus downfall, this one might be the most intriguing: A letter that appeared in The Ethicist column of the New York Times in July might have been written by the jilted husband in the mess, suggests Slate. (It first got tweeted by a Foreign Policy editorhere.) The husband's letter begins:
- "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.) ... 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."
Coincidence? Very possible, and plenty of skeptics are labeli
ng it as such. But as Gawkerpoints out, everything in the letter, including the timeline of the affair, supports the notion that it was written by the husband of Petraeus biographer Paula Broadwell. For the record, advice columnist Chuck Klosterman suggested a quiet separation, one that didn't publicly divulge the affair. And he ended with this: "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."
is this about gettin' payed?
He told the letter writer that he should tell his wife he wanted to separate, "just as you would if she were sleeping with the mailman." There was no reason, he said, to reveal the affair in a public way. Then, having offered solid advice, he went a little further:
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.
....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.
this does have a theatrical overtone
