James Bond, the legendary creation of novelist Ian Fleming, routinely bedded femme fatales–and sometimes killed them. But he never faced indictment for romancing them.
That’s the difference between Bond and David Petraeus, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Movie poster for Thunderball (1965)
The Justice Department is deciding whether to bring criminal charges against Petraeus. The FBI alleges that, as CIA director, he shared classified information with his then-mistress and biographer, Paula Broadwell.
FBI agents found classified information on a personal computer Broadwell used–and determined that Petraeus had supplied it.
As an Army General, Petraeus had successfully led U.S. troops in Afghanistan and Iraq and was thought to be a potential candidate for president.
In 2011, he won appointment to CIA director–which ended abruptly in 2012 with the revelation of his extramarital affair with Broadwell.
Petraeus is one of the most highly educated men in the United States:
- Alumnus of the United States Military Academy at West Point–graduating among the top 5% of his 1974 class.
- General George C. Marshall Award winner as the top graduate of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College class of 1983.
- Earned an M.P.A. in 1985 and a Ph.D. in International Relations in 1987 from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University.
- Served as Assistant Professor of International Relations at the United States Military Academy
David Petraeus
And Paula Broadwell is one of the most highly educated women in the United States:
- Graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1995, majoring in political geography.
- Earned a master’s degree in international security from the University of Denver’s Joseph Korbel School of International Studies in 2006.
- Earned a Master of Public Administration from the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University in 2008.
- A Research Associate in the Kennedy School’s Center for Public Leadership Fellows.
In addition, Petraeus, as director of the Central Intelligence Agency, knew the importance of secrecy in keeping clandestine affairs (military and personal) out of sight.
Paula Broadwell
So did Broadwell, having earned a reputation as an expert on counterterrorism.
Yet they both violated the most basic rules of security.
They exchanged emails using a cyber trick known to both terrorists and teenagers: Sharing a private email account, or “dropbox.”
In this they composed drafts to each other in order not to directly transmit messages to one another. Each could log onto the same account and read the draft emails there.
By doing so, they flagrantly left a cyber-trail of their infidelities. (Broadwell was also married.)
It was Niccolo Machiavelli, the father of political science, who warned: If you don’t want it known, don’t write it down.
More than 500 years ago, in his masterwork, The Discourses, he warned:
Niccolo Machiavelli
I have heard many wise men say that you may talk freely with any one man about everything, for unless you have committed yourself in writing, the “Yes” of one man is worth as much as the “No” of another.
And therefore one should guard most carefully against writing, as against a dangerous rock, for nothing will convict you quicker than your own handwriting….
You may escape, then, from the accusation of a single individual, unless you are convicted by some writing or other pledge, which you should be careful never to give.
Nor were Petraeus and Broadwell the only ones guilty of thumbing their noses at this most basic of precautions.
General John Allen, the top American commander in Afghanistan, exchanged thousands of emails with Jill Kelley, a Florida socialite.
Although charged with directing American military efforts against the Taliban, Allen found time to exchange 20,000 to 30,000 pages’ worth of emails with Kelley between 2010 and 2012.
The scandal began when Kelley began receiving harassing emails from an unidentified woman. So she complained to the FBI.
The emails allegedly came from Broadwell, who thought that Kelley was trying to move in on “her man”–Petraeus. Apparently, Broadwell didn’t feel similarly threatened by Holly, Petraeus’ wife.)
The FBI investigation ultimately led to the discovery of the Petraeus/Broadwell affair.
There are several lessons to be learned from this behavior by Petraeus, Broadwell, Allen and Kelley:
- They believed they were so privileged–by education, status and/or wealth–that conventional rules of morality didn’t apply to them.
- They believed they were so clever they could violate the most basic rule of security and common sense–and get away with it.
- They were so caught up in their illicit passions that they threw caution to the winds.
- David Petraeus, a highly disciplined man, clearly expected Paula Broadwell to behave in a similarly disciplined manner–and do nothing to compromise their lives.
- Petraeus felt so confident about the secrecy of his affair he had his wife and mistress present when he appeared before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2011 to become CIA director.
General David Petraeus’ CIA confirmation hearings. His wife, Holly (in white) and mistress, Paula Broadwell (in black).
- Petraeus didn’t imagine that Broadwell suspected another of his admirers–Jill Kelley–of having romantic designs on him.
- And he was utterly surprised when her harassing emails to Kelley led the FBI to uncover his illicit relationship.
Thus does hubris meet its punishment in Nemesis.

2012 PRESIDENTIAL RACE, ABC NEWS, ADULTERY, BARACK OBAMA, BIBLE, BILL HAMHRER, BIRTH CONTROL, CATHOLICS, CBS NEWS, CIVIL LIBERTIES, CNN, ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, FACEBOOK, FRANKLIN GRAHAM, HOMOSEXUALITY, ISLAM, JESUS CHRIST, JEWS, MITT ROMNEY, MUSLIMS, NBC NEWS, NEWT GINGRICH, RELIGION, REPUBLICAN PARTY, RICHARD FEYNMANN, RICK SANTORUM, SAUDI ARABIA, SCIENCE, SLAVERY, SPANISH INQUISITION, SUPREME COURT, TEA PARTY, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, THE WASHINGTON POST, THEOLOGY, TOMAS DE TORQUEMADA, TWITTER, USA TODAY, WAR, WOMEN
THE AMERICAN AYATOLLAHS: PART ONE (OF FOUR)
In Bureaucracy, History, Law, Military, Politics, Social commentary on January 17, 2015 at 4:16 pmHamza Kashgari, a 23-year-old columnist in Saudi Arabia, decided to celebrate the birthday of the Islamic prophet Muhammed in a truly unique way.
Hamza Kashgar
In early February, 2012, he posted on Twitter a series of mock conversations between himself and Muhammad:
“On your birthday, I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.”
“On your birthday, I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more.”
“On your birthday, I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.”
“No Saudi women will go to hell, because it’s impossible to go there twice.”
The tweets sparked some 30,000 infuriated responses. Many Islamic clerics demanded that he face execution for blasphemy.
Kashgari posted an apology tweet: “I deleted my previous tweets because…I realized that they may have been offensive to the Prophet and I don’t want anyone to misunderstand.”
Soon afterward, King Abdullah ordered his arrest.
Kashgari fled to Malaysia, another majority-Muslim country. He was quickly arrested by police as he passed through Kuala Lumpur international airport. Three days later, he was deported to Saudi Arabia.
Human rights groups feared that he would be executed for blasphemy, a capitol offense in Saudi Arabia.
After nearly two years in prison, Kashgari was freed on October 29, 2013. Kashgari used Twitter to inform his supporters of his release.
Outrageous? By Western standards, absolutely.
Clearly there is no tolerence in Saudi Arabia for the freedoms of thought and expression that Americans take for granted.
But before you say, “Religious oppression like that could never happen in the United States,” think again.
Right-wing American ayatollahs are now working overtime to create just that sort of society–where theocratic despotism rules the most intimate aspects of our lives.
One of these is the former GOP Presidential candidate and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum. In early January, 2012, he said that states should have the right to outlaw birth control without the interference of the Supreme Court.
In an interview with ABC News, Santorum said he opposed the Supreme Court’s ruling that made birth control legal:
“The state has a right to do that [ban contraception]. I have never questioned that the state has a right to do that. It is not a Constitutional right. The state has the right to pass whatever statutes they have.
“That’s the thing I have said about the activism of the Supreme Court–they are creating rights, and it should be left up to the people to decide.”
In the landmark 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court struck down a law that made it a crime to sell contraceptives to married couples. The Constitution, ruled the Justices, protected a right to privacy.
Two years later, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the Court extended Griswold by striking down a law banning the sale of contraceptives to unmarried couples.
Santorum has left no doubt as to where he stands on contraception. On October 19, 2011, he said:
“One of the things I will talk about that no President has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea. Many in the Christian faith have said, ‘“Well, that’s okay. Contraception’s okay.’
“It’s not okay because it’s a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They’re supposed to be within marriage, they are supposed to be for purposes that are, yes, conjugal, but also…procreative.
“That’s the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act….And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it’s simply pleasure.”
“How things are supposed to be”–according to Right-wing fanatics like Santorum and the evangelicals who support them.
Like the Saudi religious religious zealots who demand the death of a “blasphemer,” they demand that their religious views should govern everyone. Both groups have far more in common than they want to admit.
The important difference–for Americans who value their freedom–is this:
The United States has a Supreme Court that can–and does–overturn laws that threaten civil liberties. Laws that GOP Presidential candidates clearly want to revive and force on those who don’t share their peculiar religious views.
Eleanor Roosevelt once said: “No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
The same holds true–in a democracy–for candidates who seek dictatorial power over their fellow citizens. Don’t give them your consent.
Share this: