Senior military officer who knows her and Petraeus gives his view of Broadwell

Over that time, she went from someone very likeable to a shameless self-promoting prom queen. A very disturbing shift in how she carried herself. If she knew Petraeus was going to make an appearance at an event, she’d crash it without an invitation (she actually did this at the wedding of some close friends of mine) and photo bomb[ed] [sic] everyone there.

Robert Johnson at Business Insider writes:

I reached out to a senior military source who has worked with Petraeus, (P4) as he’s referred to within the service, and who helped provide background information for Broadwell’s book. I’ll call the officer “James Downing”). A transcript of our conversation follows:

BI: Did anyone know about the affair before today?

James: I’m not sure anyone really “knew”, per se. But it’s one of those things that, as soon as the announcement was made, I knew in an instant who it was. Everything made sense. Who had exclusive access to him? Who wrote the hagiography on his life? Who framed their entire existence around his persona? It wasn’t hard to make the guess, and the rest is public knowledge now. One day, she’s celebrating her birthday as an accomplished (if you want to use that term) author and PhD candidate, the next she’s Paula Jones.

BI: Did you know Broadwell long?

James: I’ve known her for a few years, probably five or six. When she started work on the bio she called me for background on one of the general’s previous deployments. I probably gave her four hours or so, and we stayed in touch after that by email and an occasional phone call. Over that time, she went from someone very likeable to a shameless self-promoting prom queen. A very disturbing shift in how she carried herself. If she knew P4 was going to make an appearance at an event, she’d crash it without an invitation (she actually did this at the wedding of some close friends of mine) and photo bomb[ed] sic everyone there.

BI: Seems to be plenty of rumors there was more to this announcement, and the timing, than we’ll ever know. Benghazi, the election etc:

James: I seriously doubt it had anything more to it than what we’ve heard. Let’s face it, everyone is human, and we all make mistakes. You’re a 60 year-old man and an attractive woman almost half your age makes herself available to you—that would be a test for anyone. The timing of the rumors of the administration throwing him under the bus after the election is suspect, but in the end I believe she got her claws—so to speak—in him. He had enough honor to know that a cover-up is much worse than a public admission. As a result, I think he can recover and continue to be a player on the national stage, but she’s toast. Her reputation is unrecoverable, in my opinion.

BI: What will be the result for them?

James: As for her, I just hope that she can find peace with herself and that her family can recover. Another sign that something was amiss? She posted pictures of the “happy family” more than anyone I’ve ever seen in my book, that’s over-compensating. The more you try to be something you’re not, the more obvious it becomes.

BI: Anything else to add in closing?

James: I hope both families can recover. Anyone can make a mistake.

There are always two sides to every story, and it will be interesting to hear some perspective from Broadwell’s. She has a husband and children of her own, after all, for whom I’m sure this is very difficult.

The official I spoke with obviously doesn’t speak for everyone in the foreign service, or the military, but his view of the situation is probably common.

The General fell victim to the one thing that can destroy a military leader’s reputation faster than death: Seduction.

- end of initial entry -

Kathlene M. writes:

Speaking of seduction, attached is a picture from an interview Paula Broadwell had with Charlie Rose in February 2012.

That’s quite a seductive dress to be wearing for the interview, with one shoulder exposed very sexily, don’t you think? The second interviewer in that interview, the young handsome CBS anchorman Jeff Glor, looks nervous and uncomfortable, especially at the 6:15 mark.

As I watched part of that interview, I could barely listen to what she was saying because all I could see was her shoulder and that hot pink dress! I can only imagine how a man must feel trying to concentrate.

Matthew H. writes:

I was intrigued by Kathlene M.’s comment about Broadwell’s Charlie Rose interview:

” … CBS anchorman Jeff Glor, looks nervous and uncomfortable, especially at the 6:15 mark.”

After looking at that section of the video I agree with her. Although Glor looks uncomfortable throughout the interview his mannerisms here are most telling. He averts his eyes and looks very distracted.

This effect is clearly very much intended. When women overexpose their bodies in inappropriate settings, e.g., when the flaunt their cleavage a business setting, we have to assume that Glor’s behavior at 6:15 is exactly the response they are hoping for. Any decent man will behave much as Glor does. He is wrong-footed without a word spoken.

Glor’s manner seems to reflect the powerful tension between his role as an interviewer expected to engage in a serious discussion about important public matters and the fact that the interviewee, who is supposed to be thoughtful and credible, has silently but decisively changed the subject to her own sexuality. And she has done so knowing that this most obvious fact may not be addressed by the man.

Thus, the purpose of such interactions ceases to be to advance the project or to clarify issues or any other such thing. The woman, by her glaringly out of place dress, forces the interview to turn from its proper business to a kind of sexual struggle session. The juxtaposition between her pose of seriousness and her slutty appearance presents the man with a mind-bending paradox: “Take me seriously/Don’t take me seriously,” or, “Deal with me as a peer/lust after me.” There is a rational response to either side of this paradox, but not to both together.

This was the predicament America’s greatest general foolishly put himself into and which is reproduced every day in millions of workplaces.

LA replies:

There is one response by the man which could cut the Gordian knot of this dilemma: step outside liberalism and declare openly to her face that the woman’s inappropriate dress is inappropriate. Something like this:

“Mrs. Broadwell, I have to say that you are dressed very inappropriately for this interview. We’re supposedly here to discuss your book about Gen. Petraeus, but you are wearing a revealing, seductive dress which would be appropriate for a sexy date with your husband or lover, not for a serious interview. So how do you want me and other men in this setting to respond to you? Do you want me to treat you seriously as an author? But that’s impossible, because of the way you’re dressed. Or do you want me to treat you as a sexy woman? But that would be inappropriate, since this is an interview program. What you’re doing, then, is a sexual power grab, intended to make men notice your body, even as they’re supposed to conceal the fact that they are noticing your body, which is emasculating to men. You and other women have got to decide whether you want to be sexy, or whether you want to be taken seriously; you can’t have both.”

LA writes:

The link that Kathlene provided to the interview is no longer working. I get a “Proxy error,” whatever that is, when I click on it.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 11, 2012 01:56 PM | Send