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
An intriguing letter received by New York Times “Ethicist” writer Chuck Klosterman back in July … which strangely, seems incredibly relevant to the current news cycle. Klosterman’s take: “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.” (ht Peter Feld; edited to get in more of Klosterman’s response)
“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours. This afternoon, the President graciously accepted my resignation.”
CIA Director David Petraeus has submitted a letter of resignation to President Barack Obama, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said on Friday.
“Dave’s decision to step down represents the loss of one of our nation’s most respected public servants,” Clapper said in a statement without giving a reason for the resignation.
White House spokesman Jay Carney did not provide any details but said: “We’ll have something from the president on it today.”
Petraeus said in a message to the CIA workforce that he was resigning because of an extramarital affair.
“After being married for over 37 years, I showed extremely poor judgment by engaging in an extramarital affair. Such behavior is unacceptable, both as a husband and as the leader of an organization such as ours,” Petraeus said.
The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General John Allen, is under investigation for alleged inappropriate communication with a woman at the center of the scandal involving former CIA Director David Petraeus, a senior U.S. defense official said on Tuesday.
The revelation threatens to fell another of the U.S. military’s biggest names and suggests that the scandal involving Petraeus - a retired four-star general who had Allen’s job in Afghanistan before moving to the CIA last year - could expand.
White House releases 100 pages of Benghazi emails, leaves out the first three days after the attack
It’s “the most transparent administration in history!” Sure. Even when they do a document dump, it’s totally incomplete. Take today’s Benghazi email dump, for example. Sure, it contains some pretty damaging things in it and completely discredits the Obama administration’s story about the dishonest talking points. But it’s also missing the first three days of communications.
Take a look:
The included emails begin on 9/14 and the attack happened on 9/11. What was discussed in the first three days?
Petraeus apparently was displeased by the removal of so much of the material his analysts initially had proposed for release. The talking points were sent to U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to prepare her for an appearance on news shows on Sunday, Sept. 16, and also to members of the House Intelligence Committee.
“No mention of the cable to Cairo, either?” Petraeus wrote after receiving Morell’s edited version, developed after an intense back-and-forth among Obama administration officials. “Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then.”
Petreaus’ email comes at the end of extensive back-and-forth between officials at the CIA, White House, State Department and other agencies weighing in on a public explanation for the Sept. 11, 2012, attack that killed U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans
The emails were partially blacked out, including removal of names of senders and recipients who are career employees at the CIA and elsewhere.