As you may know, Obama's hand-picked director of the CIA--former 4-star general David Petraeus--resigned. And the timing is...the equivalent of an atomic bomb: he resigned the day after the election.
If you think that's just a coincidence you're too naive to be voting.
So let's see what the Washington Post
has to say about this. Of course we're not doing this because we expect to read
the truth there, but just the opposite: The Post will give the Obama administration/Democratic party cover story
, which will show us where to look to find the contradictory evidence that could possibly, eventually, lead to the real story.
Let me fine-tune that a bit: The Washington Post is one of the most reliably pro-Democrat newspapers in the country, right up there with the NY Times and LA Times. I can't recall the last time any of those propaganda rags printed a word harmful to liberal causes or the Dem party, and I don't expect them to start doing that in this lifetime.
Now a hint: If you've had any exposure to journalism you learned the "five W's": Who, what, where, why and when. When reporters on what looks to be a *really* major story start leaving out a detailed timeline, there's a reason. And it ain't because the paper was running out of either ink or space.
So, here we go...
According to the story, Petraeus resigned because he'd been having an affair with a woman named Paula Broadwell. Ms. Broadwell had gone to Afghanistan to write about Petraeus and the two hit it off. Not exactly unheard of. Broadwell did in fact write a book about the general, titled All In.
Then later, according to the Post, Paula sent threatening e-mails to another woman close to the general. The recipient went to the authorities, who started investigating and learned of the affair. Again, this is expected.
We're now in the ninth 'graf of the Post's story, which has yet to mention a single date.
...details emerged Saturday [November 10th, four days after the election] indicating that the Petraeus allegations
became a secret election-night drama for the Obama administration. That
evening the Justice Department informed the director of national
intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., that their investigation had
unearthed compromising information about the CIA director, according to a
senior U.S. intelligence official.
Clapper then spoke with
Petraeus and urged him to resign, notifying the White House the next
day. That sequence has become a source of controversy, raising questions
among some members of Congress about why key intelligence committees
were not notified earlier and why the FBI waited before informing the
administration about a probe that had stumbled onto embarrassing details
about the CIA chief.
What the Post fails to mention is that Petraeus was sworn in as director of the CIA on September 6th of last year (2011, for those reading some years from now). Before that he'd been commander of all U.S. forces in Afghanistan from July 4, 2010 until July 18, 2011.
Here's the problem: Having served a year-long tour in a remote, unaccompanied location I'm confident that more than a few people knew about the general's affair. There are so few western women around that everyone notices one.
Next: When either a married top general or agency chief has a clandestine affair, he becomes a potential target for blackmail by foreign countries. This is Background Check 101 stuff.
When Obama appointed Petraeus, it's almost certain that the general's affair was known to Obama's minions. Does anyone believe they wouldn't tell Obama the man he was about to appoint was dangerously compromised? Of course not. Which raises the main question:
Why would Obama appoint as head the CIA a man he knew was compromised, could be blackmailed by a foreign power, and was therefore a huge political liability?
Answer: You can absolutely count on him to do as he's instructed.
The Post again:
Director Clapper learned of the situation from the FBI on Tuesday
evening around 5 p.m.,” a senior U.S. intelligence official said. “In
subsequent conversations with Director Petraeus, Director Clapper
advised Director Petraeus to resign.
Let's see now: The FBI has been investigating the affair for months, and yet the Director of National Intelligence claims he just learned about it at 5 pm on election day??
Say, that's some great intel operation ya got there, Sparky.
I'm calling bullshit on this whole thing. Somebody--agency or otherwise--knew about the affair over a year ago. Which means Obama's handlers knew. Yet Obama--with full knowledge of what he was doing--appointed a seriously compromised person--one whose judgement was totally lacking--to head the nation's main foreign intelligence service.
It was done deliberately. And there's a reason.