IS THERE A DARKER SIDE TO THE PATRAEUS SCANDAL?

The idea that retired General Patraeus has been suddenly “caught” in an affair so scandalous it warrants his resignation is preposterous. Men and women of power and celebrity have entourages. They have groupies. A little bump and grind is one of the perks of power.

The guy is a retired career military man. He was the Director of the CIA. He was a man of power, a man with personal connections. He was a man with government resources at his disposal.  Do you actually believe this kind of man is going to resign because of an affair?

Behind the curtain, propagandists constantly use the “sex scandal” and “lone gunman” story to explain events. So predictable is this, it is laughable. That the American sheeple buy into these manufactured soap operas time and time again, is just sad.

What about Paula Broadwell? She is not just some freelance writer that landed a man of elite power for a biography. We know she is a West Point graduate. She has a master’s degree in international security. She has active-duty military experience. Have you seen her? She’s fit and ripped. She once considered joining the FBI. There’s little doubt she has an active role within the military or intelligence community.

And Jill Kelley, the “victim” of threatening emails, is more than a Florida socialite. She got an appointment as honorary Korean consul in Florida. It seems she regularly hobnobs within the Florida political circles.

And what about the other top dogs that have recently been put down? The casualty list includes Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, US Army General Carter Ham, Brigadier General Jeffery A. Sinclair, and US Navy Commander Joseph E. Darlak. Did you know about them?

On October 27, ABCnews ran a story about Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette getting yanked off an aircraft carrier patrolling the waters of the Middle East due to an investigation regarding “inappropriate leadership judgment”. Conveniently, no other details were provided.

On October 31, the DOD issued a press release regarding General Ham’s departure. In it, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, felt compelled to say that “The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command due to events in Benghazi, Libya, on [Sept. 11,] 2012 is absolutely false,” he said. “General Ham’s departure is part of routine succession planning that has been ongoing since July.”

And it was reported by CBS that on November 2, Commander Darlak was relieved of duty for throwing a big bash on his big boat.

Hearings began November 5, against Brigadier General Sinclair. RT.com ripped him up big time in a piece dated November 6, hinting he is a power-crazed sex fiend. In fact, so serious is this that the AP reported “Eugene R. Fidell of Yale Law School expects the case to lead to a reduction in rank and forced retirement for Sinclair.” Apparently, Sinclair’s fiendish sexual behavior is just too sick and twisted for a jail cell. No, it is much better to force his retirement and have him prowl the population.

So, we have a General close to Benghazi announce a “routine” retirement. We have a Rear Admiral patrolling waters in the Middle East removed for an “inappropriate leadership” investigation. We have a party animal that turned his ship into Animal House. We have a sex fiend and now we have Patraeus, the unfaithful husband. All unfolding within about six weeks.

Is all this just an unconnected series of events or is this an orchestrated purging?

Well, let’s think it through. What type of activity warrants the removal of a General, Admiral, Commander and a CIA Director?

A fight over entitlement policy at a White House dinner party? A fight is a good start. But you need to push yourself a little more. How about a fight over power and influence within the top levels of our government and military?

Now we’re getting somewhere.

And to whom do all these men answer? The Commander-in-Chief, of course, the supreme ruler himself.

So it seems President Obama may have purged some top military men and his CIA Director. But why?

Benghazi?

Perhaps. Four Americans are dead. Something went horribly wrong. There is talk of gun-running. There is also talk that the Benghazi annex was actually a CIA take and torture facility, pardon me, detain and question facility. There is also the story that Ambassador Stevens was killed accidentally during a false flag kidnapping. Obama was going to “rescue” the Ambassador in October to pump up Americans for their vote. Whatever the real story, Benghazi was scandalous. Is Obama, as a good guy, dumping Petraeus and the others — cleaning house, so to speak — because of ineptitude and incompetence? That story works. Obama lovers will buy into that.

The great thing is you can flip it, too. The administration has been ducking the issue for two months. Maybe the false flag kidnapping is closer to the truth. Perhaps Obama is the bad guy and it was his dreadful mistake(s) regarding Benghazi that led to the deaths and he feels to survive politically, he needs to purge the men that know the details. That story works. Obama detractors will buy into that.

Either scenario works, doesn’t it? Is it A or B?

And it is that choice, A or B, that is the best indicator that all this probably has very little to do with Benghazi.

It is the classic presentation of false choices. You’re dedicating your time trying to solve for A or B, but you forget that A and B were presented to you as your choices, so you do not explore option C. Or option D.

Shall we go there?

If Benghazi has nothing or very little to do with the purge, what else could be the spark? We know the combatants are Obama versus some military men. Could Obama’s power have been threatened? Could these military men have concluded that Obama’s unconstitutional ways and his lawless government have gone too far? Perhaps, as part of their oath to protect America, they were conspiring to remove Obama from power. But before they met with success Obama discovered the plot and the purge began. In short, was there an attempted coup d’état?

Outrageous? Not really. Do you actually think America is immune to the struggle over power? American presidents and elite political leaders — Lincoln, Garfield, JFK, King, Malcolm X, RFK and others — have been and will continue to be assassinated. And if you actually believe the absurd “lone gunman” scenarios the propaganda press slaps on each and every one of these assassinations, stop here and re-join the herd of sheeple at the barn because you are part of the problem. The destruction of political rivals is part of the power game.

Politics is just as dirty in America as any other country. It is probably worse given the country’s global stature. The only difference between the American political power struggle and those of other countries is that the media in America is a vast propaganda machine. It is an active player within the struggle for power.

Ultimately, a coup is just as credible a scenario as the “Benghazi purge” or the “series of random events” scenario. It is actually more credible if you admit to yourself the media is participating in the power struggle for America and therefore it has a vested interest in distorting details, spinning events and keeping you in the dark.

And by the way, you can flip this “topple Obama” scenario, too. What if Obama, Petraeus and the others are all actually on the same team? That would mean there is another team, somewhere within the military and intelligence community, that is initiating these scandals to try to bring them all down. If this is the case, then this team seems to be making progress.

Is the Petraeus scandal and the recent military purges the result of  Obama removing incompetent men? Or is Obama at fault and he is purging men with direct knowledge of his miss-steps? Is Benghazi, although a real event, being used as a side-show to hide Americans from the fact that there is a very serious and dangerous internal struggle for power occurring within their government? Or, as the media portray it, is the downfall of a General, Admiral, Commander and CIA Director just unrelated events that happen to occur within six weeks of each other?

Which scenario do you think Russia, China, Israel, Britain and the rest of the world believe?

Get Citizen post links sent to you weekly. Free. Subscribe here.