However, there is one very, very, very interesting piece of information revealed in that editorial that I think shows that President Obama is not, repeat, escalating military intervention in Syria, not to any significant degree anyway:
...Perhaps nothing made the confusion of Obama’s foreign policy more obvious than the president’s brief discussion of Syria. Before the speech, White House aides told reporters that the president would make news by announcing increased lethal aid to the good guys in the Syrian opposition. Obama didn’t do that. Instead, he promised aid to Syria’s neighbors and announced only that he would “work with Congress to ramp up support for those in the Syrian opposition who offer the best alternative to terrorists and brutal dictators.”
In a White House conference call after the speech, reporters pressed a senior Obama administration official to explain what, exactly, “ramping up support” might mean. The administration, this official disclosed, would seek to “have a conversation . . . with Congress” and would be “discussing with Congress” the options available. Beyond that: “We do want to have this discussion with Congress” and “this is something we have to work with Congress on going forward” and we “will discuss our overseas contingency funding with Congress in the coming weeks” and “there needs to be dialogue and coordination between the administration and Congress” and “we want to explore whether we can come to some understanding with Congress about the best way to maximize our resources and get additional support to the Syrian people.” And on it went.
Work with Congress? What explains this sudden respect for the legislative branch? This is the same president who has repeatedly declared his willingness to circumvent Congress or ignore it altogether. “Congress is tough right now, but that’s not going to stop me,” he boasted last summer. “We’re going to do everything we can, wherever we can, with or without Congress, to make things happen.” Obama has made good on this promise—on immigration, climate change, welfare reform, health care. When Obama intervened militarily in Libya, administration lawyers prepared a lengthy justification for his decision to bypass Congress. The United States scrambled to drop bombs on regime targets to prevent Muammar Qaddafi from killing hundreds of his countrymen—and the president ordered those attacks without approval from Congress.
[source : Excuses Excuses, Editorial, The Weekly Standard, http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/excuses-excuses_793918.html, Jun 9, 2014, Vol. 19, No. 37]
The Weekly Standard has also reproduced a comment from John Bolton published in The Wall Street Journal which also attacks President Obama's foreign policy as outlined at West Point.
So how has it come to this? That the necons are attacking Obama from all angles?
On September 11th 2001 four passenger planes were allegedly hijacked and three flown into the WTC and even The Pentagon. Shortly after this General Wesley Clark was told of a plan for war on seven nations in five years: Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan and Somalia. Clark stated that after 9/11 there was a foreign policy coup, and named Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. These three had helped to establish The Project for a New American Century (founded by Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan). PNAC wrote of their desire for "a new Pearl Harbor" to go on a warmongering rampage, but in particular naming Iraq and Iran as the greatest threats to American national security. But it just so happened that PNAC interlocked with another Zionist cabal of warmongers who in 1996 wrote A Clean Break which named...Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon as targets. And to add to this Zionis, Kristol would later form The Emergency Committee for Israel.
Obama was first elected in 2008. His first war was Libya, which was one of the targets named to Clark. Obama led from behind in that war.
By 2012 the war plan as revealed to Clark should have been all done. But there had only been 3 wars, and Israel managed to lose one of them, against Hezbollah. So the warmongers needed a true friend and warmonger in The White House. Mitt Romney was a good friend of Netanyahu's already. Romney loved Israel. And Romney loved Wall Street. The rumour at Bilderberg 2012 was that Romney was their choice. So to damage Obama the incident at Benghazi was organised. Obama was damaged, but Romney blew it. Petraeus and others were ousted in scandals. Petraeus now works for the ever-present-at-Bilderberg Kravis'. So, we have to ask, why would Petraeus be given such a cushy job by Bilderberg insiders Kravis' if what happened at Benghazi was not part of Bilderberg's plan?
The first half of 2013 was dominated by scandal after scandal, all implicating Obama, but without any solid evidence. In parallel there were naked attempts at trying to trick Obama into attacking Syria: Israel and the UK saying that they had solid evidence that Assad had crossed the red line that Obama had drawn in 2012. Erdogan tried to pull a fast one. So did Hague. So did Cameron. So did Hollande. The Bilderberg/Washington Post was twice a week in its editorials demanding war on Syria.
But Obama refused.
In June the Syrian Arab Army captured the important logistics hub of al Qusair from the rebels. Within days the rebels started to suffer defeat after defeat.
Then came the mother of all scandals : Obama was personally reading all our emails.
Snowden's revelations were sold to us in the following way : that Obama was personally reading all our emails, texts, tweets, blogs, facebooks. Obama knew everything, we were told. Does it seem odd that this spying was sold to us this way, and not that the NSA was reading all our emails, etc? And the outlet of these revelations, The Guardian, is one of THE flagship NATO media outlets. Now, why would a flagship NATO media outlet allow Ed Snowden to reveal all his information about NSA spying, which was then presented as Obama reads all our emails, for 2 months, just as the Syrian rebels began to collapse? When Obama was not falling for all the psychological pressure from previous scandals, and the tricks from Erdogan and Hague and Netanyahu and their twisted ilk?
Things got so bad for the rebels last summer that their paymaster, Prince Bandar, was forced to personally threaten Vladimir Putin: dump Assad or Bandar would unleash hell on earth in Syria. Putin refused. So on 21st August something terrible happened at Ghouta. We still don't know for sure what happened. But NATO media, including The Guardian, immediately and consistently accused Assad, willfully, unprofessionally and criminally ignoring all evidence that the rebels did it: they had chemical weapons; they had threatened to use them; they had filmed their experiments of using them on rabbits; and they needed a spectacular, as Bandar had promised, to provoke a large scale military intervention on their behalf.
But after all this, all the scandals, all the tricks, all the false flags, Obama still didn't bomb Syria, instead agreeing that Syria relinquish its chemical weapons.
And to top it all off, Obama is seeking peace with Iran, which is THE whole aim of the series of war, and thus 9/11.
And so the war plan, as revealed to General Wesley Clark shortly after the inside Ziojob 9/11, gets more and more behind schedule...
I will not defend Obama on his drone policy, or his complete ignorance of what is really going on in Ukraine, or other policies, but if he is standing up to the Ziowarmongers, and and I believe that he is, then he should be commended.
But if Obama truly was The Peace President then he would stop the wars, and the meddling that risks war : drones, Syria, Ukraine.
Stop it all.
Immediately.
No comments:
Post a Comment