The situation gets summed up by this tweet:
Um, guys, there’s no good way to say this, but @cklosterman is involved in a matter of nat’l security. READ 2ND LETTER. tinyurl.com/asn397t
— Jayson Greene (@Jayson_Greene) November 10, 2012
You can see why:
MY WIFE’S LOVER
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…
It’s maybe a little unfair to do 20/20 hindsight, but then the guy who wrote the response to this Upper East Side’s version of a Penthouse Letter took the position that the affair didn’t have to be revealed because the target was apparently not a social conservative… so no, it’s not unfair at all to gently point out that it’s reasonable to expect that a real reporter who had been given this kind of hint might have gone out and done a little digging.
Assuming that this article is actually referencing Petraeus, of course.
[UPDATE: They’re saying that it isn’t.]
This @theethicist column nyti.ms/Scgf8j (2nd Q) is NOT about the Petraeus affair, based on our factchecking. Strange, I know
— HugoLindgren (@HugoLindgren) November 10, 2012
[I still say that there’s a story there. Just tossed in the guy’s lap, and everything.]