an old (very quietly made) observation among the soviets, "there is no pravda in izvestia, no izvestia in pravada," referring to the major soviet newspapers. (for you kiddies, who know not of such silly things as the history you rush headlong to repeat, "there is no truth in the news, no news in the proffered truth.")
no news in the "truth." with regard to the david petraeus "affair" we know with reasonable certainty that david petraeus noodled his young, beautiful and very high chested biographer. why? well, he confessed it, when he resigned.
this is news? that an older & powerful man with an aging wife had sex with a busty young woman who adored him? this does not happen every day, over the face of the earth.
lots of conjecture and outright balderdash being written about it, but, so far as i have seen there appears nothing to have occurred that compromised security, or the field operations of the c.i.a. maybe something to that effect will develop, maybe it won't, but the contrast to benghazi is startling.
on this, with an opportunity to damage the standing of the military and the intelligence services, the media on on the story like sharks in a feeding frenzy. no stone too small or too large to kick over, and delve in the debris underneath.
for the last week or so, absolutely no relief from the glut of "information" in regard to people fucking. you'd think the whole world was in the kardashian reality program mode.
no truth in the "news." in stark contrast, we have the circumstances of the death of an american ambassador at the hands of al queda, left behind to die with his companions by an administration that dithered to come to his aid, most likely allowing him to die to cover their perfidy in a host of matters.
to include gun running. to include shipping al queda fighters to syria. to dealings with turkey and the muslim brotherhood to effect these activities.
it is simply another "fast and furious" gun running scheme gone awry, in all likelihood, involving middle eastern terrorists instead of mexican drug lords and their drug cartels.
the mainstream media, with the exception of fox news and the washington times, does not seem to evidence the slightest interest in getting down to the bottom of this whole matter. the american public knows little more about what happen in benghazi on september 11, 2012 now than then, thanks to the gutless reporting of the media.
simply put, they choose not to investigate, in order to cover the inept lying of obama, hillary clinton and leon panetta about what happened. lying of such dimension and intended deceit as to be criminal in dimension has gone unexamined by the media.
they, and obama, want to bury the truth. along with christopher stevens. by the way, does anyone really know when and where stevens was buried? and, the media, usually with morbid fury, likes pictures of blood and gore on its pages. do you find it curious, as i do, that no descriptions of the condition of stevens' body have been forthcoming, let alone pictures.
if you think this is for any other purpose than to shield obama and his lying minions from public outrage, you are sadly mistaken.
this is how much the leftist media adores obama. they shield him from the truth that he does not want the public to know. they prattle on endlessly about an affair. i have no doubt that they will continue to do so.
you'll see whatshername's titties a long time before you'll see chris stevens' body.
john jay @ 11.18.2012