I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE BUT THE GUARDIAN HAS OUT-CHENEYED DICK CHENEY

All hail whoever wrote the editorial in The Guardian/Observer today, for he/she/they have saved me a job.

I thought it was impossible but this particular editorial has out-Kristoled Bill Kristol and even out-Cheneyed Dick Cheney in its attack on President Obama and President Putin. Both Obama and Putin should feel proud that they are both the target of such a nasty piece of work.

A week or two ago, the warmonger's warmonger, Dick Cheney, called President Obama the weakness in the White House. This was picked up and expanded by Bill Kristol, who formed PNAC of which Cheney was a very powerful member. And last weekend an alleged leak of the real agenda of Bilderberg 2014 listed Obama as an item of concern for his apparent lack of appetite for bombing innocent civilians to smithereens in the name of Bilderbergism (though he seems to be quite content with arming cutthroat Jihadis with superduper rinkydinky missiles). The Guardian has been dutifully doing its bit for the agenda by supporting the cutthroat Jihadis, not just in Syria but also in Libya, and supporting the violent NATO-sponsored neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine.

So this is the background to this particular editorial.

So why is this particular editorial so special and more revealing than previous editorials?

In one broad sweep the editorial lashes out (and I challenge anyone to describe this otherwise) at the failure of achieving the aims that the inside job 9/11 was executed for. As a reminder for the editorial board of The Guardian/Observer, here is General Wesley Clark stating what he was told by a Pentagon officer shortly after the inside job 9/11, and also naming Cheney, Wolfowitz, Kristol and PNAC, accusing them of a foreign policy coup that started in 1991:


Here are what I think are the most revealing excerpts from the editorial:

Historically speaking, Assad is something else, too: a political "strongman" in the dismaying tradition of a region that seems pitifully prone to domination by fiercely driven, unscrupulous and often unsavoury individuals with dictatorial tendencies. In recent times, Saddam Hussein in Iraq was one such; Muammar Gaddafi in Libya was another. In Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, a former general, succeeded Anwar Sadat, himself a political heir to the arch-strongman, Gamal Abdel Nasser.

...Strongman politics is both contagious and increasingly back in fashion across the Middle East, where the democratic promise of the Arab Spring revolts has mostly turned to dust and tears.

...It might once have been tempting to attribute the strongman phenomenon to local conditions, history or national cultures. But that does not explain its vigour in today's connected world. One factor that does is foreign meddling. Assad survives, for example, not because he is wanted in Syria but because external rivalries allow it. Maintaining his regime suits Russia's purposes and those of Iran, while the US, Britain and their Gulf allies, eschewing direct military intervention, lack the means to force him out.

...The paradoxical failure of western democracies to promote democracy also aids the strongman surge. In Britain, France and other European countries, voters complain endlessly about the failure of politics, either boycotting the process or casting protest votes, as in last month's European parliament elections.

...This failure of supportive, exemplary democratic leadership is even more apparent in Washington, where the longer Barack Obama has remained in office, held hostage by a hostile Congress, the more myopic, seemingly, has become his global strategic vision. Whether the issue is anti-democratic developments in Asia and in and around Russia or, for example, using US leverage to help create a unified, democratic Palestinian state, Obama has often appeared personally detached, even uninterested. Into this vacuum has stepped, notably, Russia's Vladimir Putin, whose pernicious "managed democracy" paradigm has further undermined the prospect of genuine democratic advances in Arab Spring countries. The results of Putin-style elections are fixed in advance – a model increasingly popular in Africa, central Asia and the Middle East. Putin is the ultimate strongman. His is not an example to be followed.

[source : Beware the return of 'strongmen' world leaders, Editorial, The Observer, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/08/strongmen-leaders-syria-egypt-iraq-libya, 8th June 2014]

But here is the killer excerpt:

In Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere, political strength increasingly means tyranny, and western weakness is allowing it to happen

You see, 9/11 has failed.

They, playing the 'strongman', did 9/11 to start a series of wars to assert their hegemony.

But they have failed, and now accuse anyone who resists of being a 'strongman', be it Assad, Putin or the ordinary voter of Europe who rejects the imposed tyranny of the EU.

I have been pointing this out for well over a year, perhaps several years.

As Clark states above, there was a foreign policy coup in the USA after 9/11, but the planning for that coup began around 1991 when Wolfowitz stated that America had 5 to 10 years to take out those old Soviet client regimes: Syria, Iraq, Iran.

These 3 were named along with Lebanon in A Clean Break in 1996.

Kristol with Robert Kagan then formed PNAC in 1998, with Wolfowitz, Cheney and Rumsfeld, and their first action was to write to then POTUS Clinton demanding regime change in Iraq.

Then in 2000 PNAC published Rebuilding America's Defenses which stated that Iraq and Iran were the greatest threats to US hegemony, and that the USA should go on a bloody global warmongering rampage to assert US hegemony but recognising the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" to trick the American people into supporting such bona fide lunacy.

And then, lo and behold, PNAC's wet dream came true when allegedly Osama bin Laden managed to outwit the most powerful military machine in the world...on its own turf...and fly a hijacked passenger plane that had been flown for nearly 2 hours by men who couldn't fly a paper aeroplane into The Pentagon. And this when members of PNAC were in charge of the US military when W was in Florida reading a book about a pet goat.

The rest is history.

Clark was told of the plan for totaler krieg on seven nations in five years; Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Sudan, Libya and Somalia.

War on Afghanistan (for opium).

Then war on Iraq, followed by an Israeli war on Lebanon.

But by 2007 the plan for totaler krieg was moribund. So a diabolical Plan B was hatched to unleash cutthroat Jihadis, portrayed as 'freedom fighters' in the State Department's Arab Spring, to create humanitarian crises to give NATO the pretext for war.

Thus followed war on Libya.

But in Syria that plan has stalled...AGAIN...and is very, very close to failing.

Hence, if we use the number of leaders toppled by the plan as the measure of success we can give the plan a dismal score of 2 out of 7.

This plan has stalled and probably failed BIG TIME in Syria because of three persons named in this editorial in The Guardian: Assad, Putin and Obama.

And as shown above:
1. Assad is labelled a 'strongman';
2. Putin is labelled 'the ultimate strongman';
3. Obama is implied to be a weakness.

This editorial could have been written by Cheney and Kristol themselves.

And why not? On 28th December 2010 The Guardian published an editorial entitled Mikhail Khodorkovsky: Russia's political prisoner, which focused on convicted embezzler and Rothschild gimp Mikhail Khordokovsky, and was signed by...Mikhail Khordokovsky.