A Difference of Opinion
I'm posting this exchange -- which took place late yesterday -- between contributor James Singer & me largely because I think Singer speaks for thousands of Reality Chex readers. I don't think Singer is wrong & I am right. I not only respect his point-of-view, I find it a perfectly valid one. Still, it is one that I am constitutionally disinclined to share.
Singer: Okay, since it's not going to become a reality show, I'll borrow a line from an episode of "Prime Suspect": They're "both adults; that's what adults do." Now, can we move on? Please?
CW: @James Singer. While I'm sympathetic to your view -- no, we cannot move on. And here's why: I have a penchant for knowing the whole story, & we certainly don't know the whole story here. I think we'll find out more in the coming weeks; already the thrust of the story has moved from Petraeus (who looks more & more like a standard-issue adulterer here & not the central character) to John Allen.
I've always been more interested in what makes people tick than in politics; in fact, for me, politics is sort of human interaction writ large. Whenever I'm inclined to say, "I can't believe you did that," I realize that I can't believe it because there's something about that person -- who is likely a person close to me -- that I don't know. Either I've ignored it or s/he's hid it.
Decades ago, a man I was in love with rejected me. I didn't understand why because there was little doubt he was in love with me, too. In fact, he rejected me numerous times, and we both kept coming back till I quit. I figured out the answer in 2008 -- after I read his obituary. I was terribly sad, really heartbroken, that he had died fairly young. But later I realized there was a clue hidden in his obituary that explained his treatment of me, a clue that cleared up a decades-old mystery for me. Maybe that's what "closure" is. At any rate, it helped me understand a dynamic that I completely missed when I was in love with him. It turns out I wasn't in love with the whole person, but with the part of the person who presented himself to me. I feel a certain bittersweet gratitude to him for revealing to me in death what he could not tell me when he was alive.
We can pretty much guess the whole story on Petraeus & Broadwell at this point, although our conventional wisdom may want tweaking. But we have more to learn about the motivations of other characters in this widening farce. And I really do want to find out how it ends. I hope nobody has to die for the revelation.
Singer: @Marie. Many of us have had affairs that didn't exactly end the way we wanted them to. Shit happens. But some of us--many most of us--have had affairs that ended exactly like we wanted them to. So of our failures, we got over them; of our successes we have pleasant memories. I refer you to the Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/widening-petraeus-scandal-reveals-human-race-has-b,30368/
CW: @James Singer. Obviously, I didn't make myself clear. This isn't about the affair(s) & whether or not they worked out. Gen. Allen says he did not have sex with that woman Jill Kelley, & there is no reason to assume that his having written 15,000 (or however many) e-mails to a would-be socialite in a backwater Florida city is evidence of a sexual liaison. But it is evidence of a dangerous liaison, & I'd like to see if the media can figure out for us -- or help us figure out -- how these general officers operate & why they're getting into these entanglements with women of questionable characters & motives. I don't know the answer to that.
I find the Petraeus-Broadwell [affair] understandable & I'm rather sympathetic to it. But why Petraeus & Allen would get mixed up with the Khawam twins is another matter, and how the administration handles it will be interesting to see.
I understand that a lot of people -- probably more men than women, but I'm not sure -- are not interested in the nuances of relationships. I am. The fact that what I do here on Reality Chex happens to intersect with something that fascinates me is a bonus. Naturally, you need not check in here, & I won't be giving a take-home quiz on stories I link, so you need not pay them any attention. But I hope you won't feel in the future a need to ask me to STUF as you did in an earlier comment. For one thing, it won't do any good.
CW Update: BTW, I find this Onion "story" as compelling as the one Singer suggested: "Nation Horrified To Learn About War In Afghanistan While Reading Up On Petraeus Sex Scandal."