Thursday, September 19, 2013

Barack crawled into bed with the wrong partner

Raja Abdulrahim (Los Angeles Times) reports:

 An Al Qaeda-linked group in Syria has seized control of a strategic town near the border with Turkey after clashing with fighters from the mainstream opposition Free Syrian Army, or FSA.
The capture of Azaz puts the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria less than a mile from the Bab al-Salameh border crossing, which has been under opposition control for more than a year.

The White House needs to pay attention.  This is exactly why you don't support the so-called 'rebels.' al Qaeda either is or is not a terrorist group.  The US government has maintained it is and that it is responsible for the attacks on the US in 2001.  That's not ancient history.  The White House does not need to be in bed with those who are supposed to be responsible for bringing down the Twin Towers.  But the White House is in bed with them.


Albert Aji and Bassem Mroue (AP) add, "The U.S. and its European and Gulf allies are increasingly concerned about the rising prominence of Islamists among the rebels, who have been playing a major role in the battles against President Bashar Assad's forces."  That concern is coming a little late.  The White House never, ever should have been in bed with al Qaeda.  Of all of the scandals (and there are so very many) the White House currently has, this is the one that will be the every day scandal after Barack is out of office.  A handful of historians will acknowledge it and try to make sense of it.  But in daily conversations across the country, this is what people will marvel over -- that a US president got in bed with al Qaeda.  Barack has turned himself into The Warren Report -- meaning he has ensured that with most Americans in the near future, he will have no credibility.

In 2017, you will hear comments about how "that Obama fellow was sending money and arms to al Qaeda!  Our tax dollars were going to al Qaeda!  At a time when libraries were closing down and food stamps were being cut, Obama was sending our money overseas to al Qaeda."

The Warren Report, for those who don't know, was a ridiculous white wash of the assassination of John F. Kennedy.  Whatever happened that day in Dallas, answers are not to be found in The Warren Report.  The media defended the government report for years.  That only made opposition to it all the stronger.  (And helped erode trust in the media.)

Barack has become a living, breathing, daily Warren Report.

For some, his involvement with al Qaeda will lead to cries that al Qaeda didn't really attack the US or that al Qaeda was a radical element of the CIA or who knows what.

I'm not mocking the 9-11 Truth Movement.  For me, the issue has always been the government lies about JFK's assassination.  I saw a lot of people stake their reputations on events they did not witness.  They look like idiots now.  It was a teachable moment.  When events like 9-11 take place, I am very comfortable saying, "I don't know, I wasn't there." (And, check the archives, we've said it repeatedly here.)  I am not threatened by the 9-11 Truth Movement.  I applaud any citizen researchers who devote their time and energy to serious topics.  I've noted here that it was the citizen researchers on JFK who are responsible for much of the information we know today.

And the official 9-11 story from the government does not hold water with the bulk of the public.  (Check the polling.)  Barack getting into bed with al Qaeda will only cause more doubts.  And create more doubts about the US government.

Is that really the role of the President of the United States?  To sew distrust in government?

That's what he's doing and what he will have done.

9-11 Truth will destroy Barack's reputation in the same way that the movement to discover the truth about the JFK assassination destroyed LBJ's reputation.

Yes, Bill Moyers loves LBJ.  He worked for him.  He helped target gay people for LBJ -- among other things.  LBJ was, at best, an ass.  But the people who shined the spotlight on his corruption the most were the citizen researchers.

You need a villain in a narrative.  LBJ became that.  He shamelessly and disrespectfully used JFK's death to push forward his own power lust (and imperialism), he was involved in the plotting of the assassination, he was a tool of the interests involved who knew LBJ would provide what JFK wouldn't, . . .

On and on the possibilities go and have gone for years.  LBJ was an ass.  But his image had to be destroyed -- even had he been a saint -- for the various narratives to be discussed and for the various hypotheses to be put forward.

The crazy (and conspiracy minded) Cass Sunstein should even be able to grasp that.  So too bad that he and his crazy wife Samantha Power were too busy lusting over war on Syria to warn Barack of the devastating blow he was inflicting to his own image.

Every narrative needs a villain.  It can't be Bully Boy Bush.  His stupidity (or perceived stupidity) immunized him from dastardly villain status.  While Dick Cheney has always had a built in ick-factor, he's not been important enough to make a good villain.  He's like Connie in The Godfather trilogy -- self-serving, self-involved and briefly capable of putting aside his own narcissism to attempt revenge.

Enter Barack.  The man of the question mark.  The son of a woman who herself remains a question mark (yes, even in death) and a bigamist (at the time).  Or is he?  Even who his father is causes speculation among the American people.  (I only discovered that on cab rides these last few months.  From and to airports, I heard repeatedly from cab drivers about this topic.  I mention it because it has just sprung up.  Why?  It was a topic for some people in 2008.  It became a topic again, I argue, because of Barack's illegal spying.  He was revealed on that and suddenly people who had voted for him -- and all the cab drivers were angry that they voted for him -- needed something, some hammer, to bring down the granite statue they'd helped put in place.)

Enter Barack.  The man opposed to Jeremiah Wright. (After Wright calls him a typical politician -- oh how that hurt Barack's vanity.) But who sat through sermon after sermon.  So which is it?

With Barack, even the most basic issues are questions that raise more questions.

That's because his narrative is self-created and self-inflated.  He didn't just 'massage' the resume, he went over the top.   Few would have the vanity to write two books about themselves by the age of 45.  Even the notoriously narcissistic Joan Baez waited until she was forty-six to offer a second autobiography.  (Notoriously narcissistic?  It's not for nothing Bob Dylan wrote "Queen Jane Approximately" about the woman who pretends to be embarrassed when called "Queen Joan" -- and has been called that since the sixties.)

And like a James Frey -- or serial liar -- he bends the truth and creates 'composites.'  Anais Nin created composites as well -- to avoid lawsuits.  What was Barack's excuse for creating composites?

When Barack chose to insert himself into a local government matter (the Boston incident involving Henry Gates) it wasn't just wrong in an executive branch sense, it was wrong in a Barack narrative sense and the only thing worse was the 'beer summit' which was supposed to 'normalize' Barack but only made him appear stiff and unable to relate.

Everything he does causes speculation and questions.  And for all the talk of 'Brand Obama,' it's amazing how the same group that effectively used that uncertainty to market him in 2007 and 2008 has not only run from it ever since, they've failed to do the needed damage control.


I'm removing a paragraph (before posting) because I'm not going to do his overpaid advisors work for them but Barack's own narrative, if used properly, could reassure Americans about many things including the economy.

But, again, I'm not doing their work for them.

Onto this cypher, this blank slate, much has been projected -- like a filmy illusion.  And now he's in bed with al Qaeda?

Few people speak kindly of LBJ today.  That's the fate that awaits Barack.

Justin Raimondo (Antiwar.com) writes of the 'rebels':


 Track one – direct US military intervention – has been effectively derailed, at least for the moment; however, this just means track two – a years-long effort to build up Syrian opposition forces – has been accelerated. The much-vaunted "moderate" rebel forces are getting $250 million in aid, including "light" weapons and ammunition, as well as "management" training in local governance. The idea is to focus on communities where al-Nusra, the Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria, is strong, so as to buttress supposedly "emerging moderate leaders."
That’s the theory: the practice, however, is quite another matter.
US aid is handled by the Syrian Support Group, a nonprofit organization which has the official Syrian rebel franchise: in short, SSG is the Daddy Warbucks of the rebel movement. According to Mother Jones reporter Dana Liebelson, Daddy is very laid back in his accounting and auditing methods. As her revealing piece informs us, the so-called vetting process is left largely up to local commanders, who may or may not be "extremists" themselves.
There is no governmental body in charge of oversight: all US aid is sent "directly to Syria’s Supreme Military Council," which in theory commands the loosely-organized "Free Syrian Army." SSG simply ships supplies, now including weapons, to US-Saudi-run warehouses, based in Turkey and Jordan, where the Supreme Council hands them out.



At a time of many questions, one mystery gets cleared up.  Reporters and 'reporters' have not been objective in their coverage.  Idiots like Kelly McEvers of NPR have filed 'reports' on what's happening in Syria . . . from Lebanon and based on what her friends ('rebels') tell her.  (If you missed that in real time, you can refer to Ava and my "TV: No one gets out alive" at Third from February, 2012.) She's cried on air about the death of one.  Why was none of this stopped?  How did it even get started?  In detailing a death yesterday, Adnan Hadad and Ivan Watson (CNN) reveal how the so-called rebels got good press from day one:

 During Wednesday's battle between the rival opposition groups in Azaz, a prominent opposition activist named Omar Hajouleh was shot dead by a sniper from ISIS, his brother said. Hajouleh was the head of the Azaz Media Center, a rebel-affiliated group that has long facilitated visits for foreign journalists to northern Syria.

The media will do anything for access.  It's not just Barbara Walters and Diane Sawyer pursuing 'the get,' it's all of them.


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.











 

















 

















 

















iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
Posted by at