Posted on 11/15/2012 7:20:26 AM PST by outpostinmass2
Paula Broadwell, the biographer with whom former CIA director David Petraeus had an extramarital affair, abandoned her bid for a doctorate from Harvard in 2007, failing to advance to PhD candidacy after four semesters at the Kennedy School of Government, and now faces the prospect of an ethical review at King’s College London, where she has resumed pursuit of a doctorate. The revelations about her mixed academic record add to the portrait of a principal figure in the Petraeus scandal who has refused to respond to multiple Globe requests for comment and hasn’t spoken publicly since disclosure of her relationship with …
(Excerpt) Read more at bostonglobe.com ...
Haha! Wish I had saved the YouTube link...it was a clip in which Broadwell is speaking of Petraeus’ devotion to his wife and family. It is clear in the video that Broadwell is “smitten” with the General.
I think that is the clip. Why did she need a co-writer? He looks bored as hell.
You’re missing that the Whitehouse knew about the affair before they made Petraeus director. They won’t appoint somebody they don’t have something on. It’s called Chicago politics.
Looks like she didn’t pass her comps!!
KK <— who passed hers this summer
I am reminded of 4 Lacrosse players being hung out to dry by Duke based on the obvious lies of a crazy ho.
This is no different. It wasn’t about the truth then. It is not about the truth now.
Benghazi. Say it again: Benghazi.
This is about complicity in murder and terrorism, not sex.
This is about Obama, not Broadwell.
Benghazi.
just...wow. She sounds like a groupie, not a professional author.
The full article is one big hit piece
so says the Globe....
Congrats! I passed my a few years back. I can at least sympathize with her for getting the boot from a doctoral program. That can leave a nasty mark.
Just the whole story. Hint: It has nothing to do with an illicit affair.
That's for ure. :-)
“Hint: It has nothing to do with an illicit affair.”
I’m assuming that this version of events—that Petraeus was pushed out because he was trying to defend CIA, which didn’t exactly square with WH version of Benghazi—is approximately correct. All I’m saying is that if this indeed was the reason for tossing him under the bus, what would motivate WH to attack Broadwell? She supplied them with the perfect innocuous pretext for getting rid of him. Why undercut that rationale by making it appear that she’s a stalker and encouraging the public to be sympathetic towards Petraeus? It’s better for the WH if the public has a “good riddance” attitude towards Petraeus.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2959927/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.