By John M. Peters
Dating back to at least 2007, the Bush Administration and its Saudi and Israeli allies were hatching the plan
to overthrow the government of Syria. It was also well known that the
use of radical Islamic organizations or Jihadists was a sanctioned tool
in this plan. As reported by Seymour Hersch, Saudi Arabia left no doubt about its intentions in Iraq and Syria:
“The Times reported that the King warned Cheney that Saudi Arabia
would back its fellow-Sunnis in Iraq if the United States were to
withdraw…’The last time Iran was a threat, the Saudis were able to
mobilize the worst kinds of Islamic radicals. Once you get them out of
the box, you can’t put them back.’”
“Their message to us was ‘We’ve created this movement, and we can
control it.’ It’s not that we don’t want the Salafis to throw bombs;
it’s who they throw them at—Hezbollah, Moqtada al-Sadr, Iran, and at the Syrians, if they continue to work with Hezbollah and Iran.”
“Jumblatt then told me that he had met with Vice-President Cheney
in Washington last fall to discuss, among other issues, the possibility
of undermining Assad. He and his colleagues advised Cheney that, if the
United States does try to move against Syria, members of the Syrian
Muslim Brotherhood would be ‘the ones to talk to,’ Jumblatt said.”
Upon her appointment as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton willingly
picked up the torch on the policy to overthrow the government of Syria.
In this cause she enlisted underlings Robert Ford, and Susan Rice. Ford openly fomented opposition while serving as the U.S. Ambassador to Syria,
while Rice pounded the table as Ambassador to the U.N. relentlessly
demanding international military action to unseat Syria’s President a
demand she has continued to make in her position as National Security Advisor.
Throughout this period somebody else had Clinton’s ear on Syria –
someone with ties to Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood. That
person was Huma Abedin,
Clinton’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Adebin was also the wife of disgraced
former New York Congressman, Anthony Weiner, and a Clinton aide since
1996. Abedin was considered Clinton’s closest policy advisor on the
Middle East. Is it any wonder that Clinton has been the talon-baring hawk for military intervention in Syria? In taking this line, Clinton insures both Saudi and Israeli support for her run at the Oval Office.
Which takes us full circle to America’s latest ‘existential threat’ –
ISIS or ISIL or IS, depending upon which moniker the West has decided
to use for the day. ISIS never existed until the conflict in Syria. Its
members have come from throughout the world, their common denominator
being their fervor for Jihad and cutting off peoples’ heads. How were
all of these individuals able to travel freely from their native
countries, including the U.S. and Britain, to the Middle East? Who paid
their way? Who purchased and supplied the weapons they are unleashing
from Syria to Iraq? Who provided them with military training? Why are
western nations backing them in Syria, but attacking them in Iraq? If we
are now worried about the return of the American jihadists from their
butcher-fest in Syria, and we know who they are, why does the U.S.
government not simply revoke their passports and refuse them re-entry.
Why does Obama not simply order them assassinated as he did with U.S.
citizen Anwar al-Awlaki???
It is commonly known that ISIS gets its support from those nations
(including prominent individuals and organizations within those nations)
which are trying to assure the destruction of Shiite influence in the
Middle East. They plan to accomplish this through the advancement of a
Sunni extremist agenda. How ironic that those nations – Saudi Arabia,
Turkey and Qatar – also happen to be America’s closest allies in the
region! If ISIS is such an existential threat, why are we not
threatening or bombing Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar? As columnist
Patrick Buchanan recently wrote:
“If President Recep Tayyip Erdogan wanted to crush ISIS, he could
seal his border to foreign fighters entering Syria and send the Turkish
army to assist President Bashar Assad in annihilating ISIS in Syria.” Buchanan notes that instead of supporting them, U.S. politicians like John McCain, want to attack “Syria’s army, the most successful anti-ISIL force in the field.”
The Obama Administration’s see-no-evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no-evil
policy on the Benghazi fiasco is also rooted in the ISIS issue. It is
known that Benghazi was being used by the United States to procure weapons and Libyan jihadists to send to fight in Syria by way of Turkey.
The
recent execution of American journalist James Foley (if it occurred)
also has its roots in America’s Syrian policy. Foley was originally
kidnapped not by ISIS, but by Senator John McCain’s ‘moderate Syrian
rebel’ allies, the so-called Free Syrian Army. The same ‘moderate rebels’ who cannibalized dead Syrian soldiers on camera. They then transferred or traded Foley to ISIS.
In the classic television comedy The Three Stooges, the Stooges are
working as exterminators. Business is slow so they find a way to
increase their business by pretending to conduct home inspections for
pests while actually planting pests in the home. They then leave the
homeowner with their business card and wait for the call. Soon after,
the frantic homeowner urges them to return quickly and they have a
paying job of their own creation.
The trail of ISIS terror leads painfully, inexorably and unmistakably
back to the United States and its allies. ISIS was a creation of the
West and its failed policy decisions. Now ISIS is being used as the
excuse for further military adventurism in the Middle East. Stooges
indeed!
Wednesday, August 27, 2014
Thursday, July 24, 2014
When in Hole Stop Digging
By Michael Rozeff
Where it counts, in the higher levels of the U.S. government, the most powerful positions are filled by fools. What other conclusion can be drawn when every major policy move is foolish, destructive and dangerous? Are we supposed to believe that American meddling and aggressions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria accomplished something desired by these men and women and something beneficial to Americans? Are we supposed to believe that the management of the American economy has benefited this country, or that the surveillance state is a big plus? Are we supposed to believe that the huge spending financed by a huge national debt is producing dividends for America?
And now, are we supposed to believe that confronting Russia over Ukraine, seeking to bring down Putin, and stirring up trouble inside Russia is going to produce a new set of institutions and leaders in Russia that is more beneficial to us? Are we supposed to believe that confronting China will do the same? Or that spreading American forces throughout Africa will bring us peace?
Why should we expect anything but bad results from American meddling and confrontations when that is all that they have produced for many years now? Why should we not conclude that the country is being run by ignorant and naive fools or jackasses, who keep beating their heads and ours against one wall after another? How stupid are they to be imbued with confused ideas about remaking the world and whose methods for doing so cluelessly produce one debacle after another?
Where it counts, in the higher levels of the U.S. government, the most powerful positions are filled by fools. What other conclusion can be drawn when every major policy move is foolish, destructive and dangerous? Are we supposed to believe that American meddling and aggressions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria accomplished something desired by these men and women and something beneficial to Americans? Are we supposed to believe that the management of the American economy has benefited this country, or that the surveillance state is a big plus? Are we supposed to believe that the huge spending financed by a huge national debt is producing dividends for America?
And now, are we supposed to believe that confronting Russia over Ukraine, seeking to bring down Putin, and stirring up trouble inside Russia is going to produce a new set of institutions and leaders in Russia that is more beneficial to us? Are we supposed to believe that confronting China will do the same? Or that spreading American forces throughout Africa will bring us peace?
Why should we expect anything but bad results from American meddling and confrontations when that is all that they have produced for many years now? Why should we not conclude that the country is being run by ignorant and naive fools or jackasses, who keep beating their heads and ours against one wall after another? How stupid are they to be imbued with confused ideas about remaking the world and whose methods for doing so cluelessly produce one debacle after another?
Saturday, March 15, 2014
Government Lexicon
By Michael S. Rozeff
Words no longer mean anything stable and therefore laws mean nothing stable at the highest level of U.S. government. The government is the master of words now. It creates threats when none exist. It defines and names them according to its pleasure. This in turn justifies it in creating a national emergency when there is none.
There is no restraint, no constraint, no boundary on what a president can do when and if words fail to provide such constraints. When a president uses words to mean things they do not in fact mean, that is, when he uses bald-faced lies as justifications for his actions, then any so-called law can be issued by a president. He can do anything by declaring that the situation demands it, even if it doesn’t. At that point, words mean nothing of what their conventional content gives them. They become what authority says they mean. At that point, we are in an Alice in Wonderland world.
Alice is talking with Humpty Dumpty:
Obama is now the master. Here is Humpty Dumpty Obama speaking. Obama issued an executive order that says:
What national emergency? There isn’t any. I defy anyone to prove that there is an actual national emergency because of relations between Crimea and Ukraine. Obama finds “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” What threat? I defy anyone to prove that there is a threat to the security of Americans arising from Crimea’s relations with Ukraine.
What danger is there to Americans if Crimea holds a referendum? What danger if it decides to alter its political relations with Ukraine and Russia? What actually is the “Government of Ukraine” of which Obama speaks? What are its democratic processes being undermined? How can a vote in Crimea cause an emergency to Americans? How can such a vote cause an emergency to Americans while riots in the streets, snipers and thugs can cause a change in government in Ukraine and that is no cause for Obama to declare an emergency, indeed that becomes a cause for approval?
In Obama’s dictionary, if he thinks something has happened in Crimea having to do with its government that another government (in Ukraine) has not authorized, then this constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” This constitutes an “emergency”.
If the foreign policy of the United States is unlawful to begin with and if it is thwarted by Crimeans or a Crimean vote to separate from Ukraine, does that give rise to a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S.? Even if it does, which it doesn’t in this case, is it so serious as to declare that the U.S. foreign policy faces an emergency?
A national emergency arises from a threat to THE NATION, that is, to Americans regarded as a people. If there is a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S., and I deny that a vote among Crimeans is a genuine threat even to that, this is not the same as a threat to Americans. There is no national emergency.
How can a vote in Crimea be viewed as a threat to U.S. foreign policy and the overturning of the government of Ukraine by violent means not be viewed as a threat? Only if the U.S. is content with the latter but unhappy with the former. In other words, to the U.S. government, a threat is that which frustrates what it desires. It is not based on something objective that endangers Americans but on an impediment to U.S. foreign policy. This impediment is declared to be a threat so that then a national emergency can be declared when none exists. That in turn then is used to justify taking actions in the form of sanctions.
Is the frustration of a want to be called a threat? If I want a Mercedes-Benz in a showroom but can’t get it without paying for it, is the dealer a threat to my “foreign policy”? Do I then declare that the dealer has threatened my family? Do I declare a family emergency? Do I then use my power to blockade the showroom or to prevent the dealer from accessing his bank account or to stop trailers from delivering new cars to him? Yes, this all sounds very far-fetched but so is it far-fetched for Obama to see a threat to this nation from a vote in Crimea and declare a national emergency.
Obama’s executive order is a raw exercise of power dressed up to give the appearance of legality.
Words no longer mean anything stable and therefore laws mean nothing stable at the highest level of U.S. government. The government is the master of words now. It creates threats when none exist. It defines and names them according to its pleasure. This in turn justifies it in creating a national emergency when there is none.
There is no restraint, no constraint, no boundary on what a president can do when and if words fail to provide such constraints. When a president uses words to mean things they do not in fact mean, that is, when he uses bald-faced lies as justifications for his actions, then any so-called law can be issued by a president. He can do anything by declaring that the situation demands it, even if it doesn’t. At that point, words mean nothing of what their conventional content gives them. They become what authority says they mean. At that point, we are in an Alice in Wonderland world.
Alice is talking with Humpty Dumpty:
“‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’Who is master, the word or its user, in this case Humpty Dumpty? Humpty tells Alice he’s the master.
“‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
“‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’”
Obama is now the master. Here is Humpty Dumpty Obama speaking. Obama issued an executive order that says:
“I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, find that the actions and policies of persons — including persons who have asserted governmental authority in the Crimean region without the authorization of the Government of Ukraine — that undermine democratic processes and institutions in Ukraine; threaten its peace, security, stability, sovereignty, and territorial integrity; and contribute to the misappropriation of its assets, constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and I hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that threat. I hereby order:”
What national emergency? There isn’t any. I defy anyone to prove that there is an actual national emergency because of relations between Crimea and Ukraine. Obama finds “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” What threat? I defy anyone to prove that there is a threat to the security of Americans arising from Crimea’s relations with Ukraine.
What danger is there to Americans if Crimea holds a referendum? What danger if it decides to alter its political relations with Ukraine and Russia? What actually is the “Government of Ukraine” of which Obama speaks? What are its democratic processes being undermined? How can a vote in Crimea cause an emergency to Americans? How can such a vote cause an emergency to Americans while riots in the streets, snipers and thugs can cause a change in government in Ukraine and that is no cause for Obama to declare an emergency, indeed that becomes a cause for approval?
In Obama’s dictionary, if he thinks something has happened in Crimea having to do with its government that another government (in Ukraine) has not authorized, then this constitutes “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States…” This constitutes an “emergency”.
If the foreign policy of the United States is unlawful to begin with and if it is thwarted by Crimeans or a Crimean vote to separate from Ukraine, does that give rise to a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S.? Even if it does, which it doesn’t in this case, is it so serious as to declare that the U.S. foreign policy faces an emergency?
A national emergency arises from a threat to THE NATION, that is, to Americans regarded as a people. If there is a threat to the foreign policy of the U.S., and I deny that a vote among Crimeans is a genuine threat even to that, this is not the same as a threat to Americans. There is no national emergency.
How can a vote in Crimea be viewed as a threat to U.S. foreign policy and the overturning of the government of Ukraine by violent means not be viewed as a threat? Only if the U.S. is content with the latter but unhappy with the former. In other words, to the U.S. government, a threat is that which frustrates what it desires. It is not based on something objective that endangers Americans but on an impediment to U.S. foreign policy. This impediment is declared to be a threat so that then a national emergency can be declared when none exists. That in turn then is used to justify taking actions in the form of sanctions.
Is the frustration of a want to be called a threat? If I want a Mercedes-Benz in a showroom but can’t get it without paying for it, is the dealer a threat to my “foreign policy”? Do I then declare that the dealer has threatened my family? Do I declare a family emergency? Do I then use my power to blockade the showroom or to prevent the dealer from accessing his bank account or to stop trailers from delivering new cars to him? Yes, this all sounds very far-fetched but so is it far-fetched for Obama to see a threat to this nation from a vote in Crimea and declare a national emergency.
Obama’s executive order is a raw exercise of power dressed up to give the appearance of legality.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Uncensored!!
The below embedded video interview of the whistleblower/hero “traitor” Edward Snowden by a German journalist was expected by this writer to go viral on the internet. Strangely, although having been posted many times on YouTube, its shelf life has been shall we say “short”. It would appear that our minders in the US media do not wish dissemination of any but the official version of the NSA leaks. In any event, dear readers, please avail yourselves of the opportunity for exposure to a non official perspective regarding the lies, lawlessness, secrecy and obtrusiveness of the imperial regime:
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)