General McChrystal being fired for insubordination is no shock to people in our security and military. A serious pattern, which the media is missing, has now been in process for several months. It must be pointed out that while General McChrystal’s comments were improper behavior not becoming of a commander, however being based on the General’s record why would he have dared to state the things he said to anyone let alone a left wing reporter, this is a question most of the media is not asking?
General McChrystal was highly regarded and very “serious” in his duties as described by many in the center of the political spectrum. He is also probably a moderate democrat or independent, based on the fact that he admitted voting for President Obama, but even he had great challenges in dealing with the amateur and inexperience or could it be possibly be an alternative agenda coming from this current White House administration?
While this story on its own might be construed as just some frustrations being aired and done improperly in public, we have discovered a very troubling pattern from people we have connections with in our security forces which span the FBI, CIA, NIA and the Military.
We received information a couple of weeks ago from a very reliable source in the Intelligence community, who advised us that the real reason that Dennis Blair resigned as head of the NIA last month, was not what was reported in the media but was because Admiral Blair was unable to get approval for any recommendation he had passed by the President. Our source went on to say that the President either rejects or delays all-important proposals from his key security advisors. It is interesting to see how quickly the President has acted in this particular case in firing General McChrystal, the opposite to how he acts normally.
It is no wonder why General McChrystal has spoken out in frustration especially when he once had a favorable view of the President, as it is obvious how difficult it must have been to get the proper support and decision making from his Commander in Chief. The so-called insubordination and relief of a commander in the field has only happened once in the last 50 years with General McArthur and President Truman in the Korean War. It is beyond doubt that McChrystal was extremely frustrated and it was very probable that the President knew and wanted the General removed. The Rolling Stone magazine article was possibly a deliberate effort to use as a way of getting rid of the General or at a minimum the article came at a very convenient moment.
It is also ironic that General Patreus has been appointed to head the Afghanistan campaign on the ground. This is the same General who was castigated by the hard left as “General Betrayus.” I predict that a similar fate awaits General Patreus as it did General McChrystal. General Patreus’s reputation is currently very high and if the left can squash him too, they will have the best excuse to withdraw from Afghanistan. The story will go like this: since General Patreus, our best General cannot make progress in Afghanistan then we need to withdraw. While the General is trying to do his job the administration will not give him what he needs to win and then blame him for the failure. Some may scoff at this analysis but this is exactly the type of thing that happened with Vietnam.
The defense of any nation is the foremost of obligations of its government and based on the evidence that we have shown on our website with reports from Pajamas Media and the interviews with a former analyst at the Pentagon and FBI agent, as well as the apparent rebellion that now appears within the framework of our security apparatus, it is apparent that we as a nation are at great risk from our enemies; this, on top of the serious breaches of security at our airports and military installations.
Eighteen months into this Presidency we have seen a man who speaks moderately and appeals to the ear, however the actions of the President contradict everything that he utters in his speeches and press conferences.
It also needs to be asked what this President’s real agenda is. Is it just folly of appeasement or is it that his agenda is to do our enemies bidding or is it something worse? These are unfortunate questions that should not be normally even considered about an elected President of the United States, however, the evidence of mere incompetence is already valid but I would contend based on disturbing conversations with people in the security field that we need to ask the question, is the President one of us or somebody else?