Saturday, September 21, 2013

In-Flight Engine Overhaul

The spin doctors and apologists are coming out in force: the events regarding Syria demonstrate the toughness and correctness of the policies of Obama.  You didn’t know that, did you?

I guess we needed a few days before we were let in on the secret, or perhaps to allow the spin doctors to come up with a story.

One example is provided by Jeffrey Goldberg at Bloomberg, in a commentary entitled “From Iran to Syria, Obama's Toughness Is Paying Off.”

There is one main reason why Iran is making conciliatory noises about its relationship with the U.S. and about the future of its nuclear program, and there is one main reason why Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, is signaling his intention to give up his stockpiles of chemical weapons.

The reason: President Barack Obama's toughness.

He goes all neocon after this; none of this very relevant to my point.

Off the top of my head, the events regarding Syria occurred in this order:

1)      There was a reported gas attack.
2)      Obama said the US was going to send in the missiles.
3)      France said ‘We’re in.”
4)      The British Parliament said “We’re not.”
5)      Most other “allies” declined to participate.
6)      Obama started getting nervous, standing on the ledge with only the French government behind him.
7)      Obama decided to hide behind Congress.
8)      The people of the US sent a very clear message: “Don’t count us in.”
9)      Sadly, no vote was taken – leadership in Congress knew it would be thumbs down.
10)   Obama, after seeing his cause was hopeless, was looking for a lifeline.
11)   Putin saved him.

That’s pretty much it.

Was it all part of Obama’s plan?  Was this his way of demonstrating “toughness”?

Let’s play along – say it was the plan.  What did it demonstrate?

The world saw that it could call the bully out and win.  If Obama was bluffing, this was a dangerous lesson to teach other world-powers: did Obama want to draw Putin into a position of making even bigger challenges in the future only as a pretext to a big showdown?

Let’s hope not, as this will lead to even greater calamity in the future.

If this was a blunder on Obama’s part, I keep in the back of my mind that such major blunders don’t normally occur, and rarely, if ever, so publicly. 

However, my gut still tells me the global elite power game has seen a pretty significant inflection point.  The tool used by the elite to exert global control is losing its capability (this is certain, with or without Syria), and there is no replacement tool. 

This would suggest that Obama blundered.  The fact that apologists like Goldberg are coming out and trying to get us to believe the unbelievable – that up is down and day is night – perhaps adds a bit of support to this view.


  1. They got used to all the libtards going along worshipfully no matter how obvious the lies. The individual apologists mostly don't realize it but this is not really to save Obama's butt but rather to save the war(s) to prolong the run of the petrodollar. When they get to the point that they can no longer keep down the people or the foreigners with lies, it will be force and fear. Unless of course, the big money actually open their eyes and back off. Maybe they will decide that just stealing the rest of the US will be enough this time.

    Sorry about the but(t)s, they went so well with the libtards.

    Too bad about our favorite site. Now I wonder even more what happened. Not going to contact though. I don't suppose they would talk to me anyway. taxes

    1. "...this is not really to save Obama's butt..."

      I agree that Obama is irrelevant in this; however I believe the issue is to save the power of the office of the president. Of course, that power is conjoined to the petro-dollar, so perhaps it is one and the same thing.

      "Too bad about our favorite site."

      If there was ever a topic calling out for DST analysis, it is the Syrian situation. It seems Anthony is going elsewhere.

      Yes, too bad....

    2. I am writing an explanation for a friend of why the hard push for war with Syria. She is not a news junkie like many that we know, so it is taking more than I thought it would. I know of many reasons, all of which I have read good articles about. I have not read anything that puts all of them in one place.

      This may put me in the public eye, even if only for a moment. If so, I hope it does not also put me in jail. I keep trying to shorten it but to make all of it understandable to the general public requires more than I would include in something like a magazine article. I don't think I can get it under 4,000 words without leaving out too much history.

      US using WTO to force derivatives and countries that refused
      Western creation of Middle East Countries/WWI
      Wahabism/Saudi Royals
      Ethnic and religious map of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Saudi, Qatar
      Pipeline agreements already signed, and potential
      Makeup of "Syrian" rebels

      It seems far too much but when I explain something, I want people to really understand. What should I leave out? taxes

    3. You are correct, to cover all of these various angles would require a book.

      I will suggest, start and end here:

      If your audience does not see this as an "aha" moment, writing an additional thousands of words will not make any difference; if it is seen as an "aha" moment, writing an additional thousands of words will not be necessary.

      If Rothbard's article is too long, perhaps you can take the most important points and write a shorter version based on these - with attribution, of course.

  2. Thank you Jonathan. I will write her explanation and the more thorough one separately. I think that just explaining the petrodollar and Wahabism would be enough to make most Americans do a double-take. Once they get that, each little increment of added understanding should make them seethe. This will not be my first attempt at a full length non-fiction book. Hopefully, it will be the first published. taxes

  3. Good post BM. It is fine that the spin doctors are in damage control but the problem they have is that nobody believes anything the mainstream propaganda machine produces anymore.