RE WHO WAS MORE DERANGED PATTON OR EISENHOWER

It has come out, over the years that the OSS, at the highest level, collaborated with Russia to remove and then to kill Patton. The Americans themselves seem to have carried out this murder, although the details are shrouded in almost as much confusion as the JFK assassination.
The explanation given to Bazata by Donovan was that he was dangerous and deranged.

Drew Pearson was the slut patsy chosen by the OSS to convey this false story, couched appealingly in the Jewish private slapping story, (who was ill but nobody knew that or cared) to the eager libertarian American public.

One obvious question: Who was more dangerous and deranged? Patton or Eisenhower?

Patton had begged Eisenhower to take Berlin, and other Eastern European capitols. So, it seems, had Montgomery to his superiors.

Eisenhower saw no use in taking Berlin, or any other place over there.

So, was Montgomery deranged too?

What has any of that, really, frankly, to do with slapping an ill Jewish, yellow belly, Army, Drew Pearson bait, buck private?

Let's change tack, for a moment. Call it a pivot!

Why would you collaborate with the Soviets re Europe, killing Patton, giving Eastern Europe  to them, when they had just, just rammed Japan all the way up your ass in the Pacific, resulting in a terrible life and death struggle in Asia?

What rational person would do that?

Let's change tack: whom do you, only now, believe less:

The NYT in 1964 re Kitty Genovese?

or

Drew Pearson in say 1944, re Patton?

Pearson was no more, and no less, self centered and unscrupulous, in 1944, and it would be really hard to ever be more self centered or unscrupulous than he,  than the NYT had been in 1937, or 1964, or 2016.

Jefferson, also, re self centered and unscrupulous, had talked a good talk, Declaration of Independence, etc.

But he had kept his own slaves to the end, baby!

Terms search: pivot