With the situation in the Ukraine deteriorating by the minute and Vladimir Putin gleefully sticking his finger in Obama's eye just as he did with the Syria situation, you'd think that Obama would want to be up to date on the goings-on there. But his national security team met today without him. Supposedly he was briefed by Susan Rice, but shouldn't the leader of the free world and the person Putin most wants to embarrass, show up for his own security briefing?
Whether he eventually got briefed or not, the appearance of his not caring enough to be there in person is emblematic of his carelessness when ever he deals with trouble abroad. Clearly, he doesn't care. To Obama, foreign policy issues are a meaningless distraction from fundamentally transforming racist, imperialist America into a second rate nanny state ruled by an enlightened oligarchy of people like him.
There's nothing Obama can do to alter in any meaningful way the outcome of the Ukraine situation, and Putin is again outing Obama as the rank amateur he is. But Obama could at least give the pretense of giving a damn.
31 comments:
I am ashamed.
”According to reports published by Haaretz and the Times of Israel on Friday, an Israeli army veteran identified as 'Delta' headed a street-fighting unit [35 men and women, led by five ex-Israeli soldiers] in Kiev”.
[snip]
"Russia has repeatedly [and correctly –I.A.N.] accused the West of meddling in the internal affairs of Ukraine and fueling the crisis in the country."
(PressTV)
Seriously Isaac? You're blaming the evil Joooos for the unrest among the pro-western/anti-Putin Ukrainian citizens?
I recommend a remedial reading class, Ed. The post above quoted published reports in Haaretz and The Times of Israel, both Israeli organs. I didn't say that Israelis were involved in the Ukraine conflict, the Israelis said it.
Excerpted from:
The Coup in Ukraine: Obama’s Dumbest Plan Yet
By Mike Whitney
"Moscow is keenly aware of Washington’s divide and conquer strategy, but has downplayed the issue in order to avoid a confrontation. The US-backed coup in Ukraine means that that option is no longer feasible. Russia will have to respond to a provocation that threatens both its security and vital interests."
Excerpted from:
What the Hell is Obama Thinking?
by Daniel Patrick Welch
”Nothing is quite as nauseating as watching the hypocrisy and hubris with which President Obama ‘warns’ the Russian president not to ‘interfere’ in Ukraine, telling the Russians there would be ‘costs to pay.’ It’s a surreal move….
[snip]
How oblivious or arrogant do you have to be to spend $5 billion dollars destabilizing a country (the actual total is undoubtedly much higher), have your diplomats caught on tape planning a coup, bring a gang of fascist thugs to power on Russia’s doorstep – whose first order of business is to outlaw the Russian language, conduct a purge of opposing parties, threaten the Russian-speaking population, threaten to restore Ukraine’s nuclear status and provoke and threaten Russia non-stop - and have the *balls* to lecture anyone about interfering?”
Dave, can you corroborate any of this US-destab. conspiracy claim? Obviously I'll be investigating this further as I'd like to see somebody print it elsewhere.
Ed,
I cannot corroborate any of it. But that doesn't mean we are not somehow involved, even with good intentions.
David
I just don't see Obama being clever enough to attempt the destabilization of a government he cares nothing about. Obama took Putin at his word when he said "we'll never go into the Ukraine".
During the debates he said "the cold war is over". Essentially saying that we can now trust the Russians and can operate under the assumption that they only have the best interests of everybody at heart.
Why would somebody so naive, use the Jooos to destabilize one country, for the purposes of antagonizing another? Obama's just not that smart.
Ukraine: This Isn’t A Revolution – It’s Regime Change
By Brendan O’Neill
March 03, 2014
"… Even in this era of rampant political spin and platitudes, where George Orwell’s claim that political language is used and abused to ‘make lies sound truthful and murder respectable’ has never been truer, the commentary on Ukraine stands out for its dishonesty. Western observers tell us there has been a revolution in that benighted nation. They claim revolutionaries have overthrown a dictator. They [and Ed – I.A.N.] say the people of Ukraine have risen up and deposed their despot….. It is hard to remember the last time political language was so thoroughly used to obfuscate reality, to impose inappropriate historical narratives on to a messy modern-day event. For what we have in Ukraine is not revolution, but regime change, set in motion far more by the machinations of Western politicians than by the stone-throwing of Ukrainians.”
(continued at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37828.htm)
Isaac, I don't think this is a revolution in any respect. It is most certainly a hotly contested regime change that will determine for the foreseeable future the political and maybe cultural direction of the Ukraine.
I just question how direct of a role did American and Israeli intelligence and money play....I'm guessing very little.
excerpted from:
UKRAINE: ONE ‘REGIME CHANGE’ TOO MANY?
By Ray McGovern
March 02, 2014
In early February, as violent protests raged in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev and the White House professed neutrality, U.S. State Department officials were, in the words of NYU professor emeritus of Russian studies Stephen Cohen, “plotting a coup d’état against the elected president of Ukraine.”
We know that thanks to neocon prima donna Victoria Nuland….
…recall her amateurish, boorish use of an open telephone to plot regime change in Ukraine with a fellow neocon, U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt. Crass U.S. interference in Ukrainian affairs can be seen (actually, better, heard) in an intercepted conversation posted on YouTube on Feb. 4.
(complete story at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37819.htm)
These are overt actions that Nuland is speaking of. Where is the data on our hidden coup attempt with Israel that the media can't figure out?
“Where is the data on our hidden coup attempt with Israel that the media can't figure out?”
Did you read the Haaretz and The Times of Israeli reports, Ed, or do you assume that as long as you deny something that something does not exist? (P.S. Your belief that “the media” tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is unfounded. If you want to know the truth on almost any subject you have to scratch and dig for it on your own. To paraphrase the thuglife saying, “You got to get yours. Ain’t nobody gonna give it to you.”
Obama’s Strategy Of Fomenting Revolution In Ukraine Is Backfiring Dramatically
By: alexmark
“When the Obama administration was plotting to overthrow the democratically-elected government of Ukraine, what in the world did they expect to happen in the aftermath? Did they just expect Russia to roll over and play dead as the U.S. and the EU installed a rabidly anti-Russian government in Kiev? Over the past few years, the U.S. government has chosen to foment violent political revolutions all over the globe. We have seen violent revolutions overthrow governments all across the Middle East and Africa, but when the U.S. government decided to do the same thing in Ukraine they went way too far. When you mess with Ukraine, and when you mess with Crimea in particular, you are crossing a huge red line as far as the Russians are concerned.”
”From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia….”
~veteran reporter, Steven Kinzer
________________________________________
“If you ask how we got in it, how we got into the [Ukrainian] crisis, and how therefore do we get out, it is time to stop asking why Putin – why Putin is doing this or that, but ask about the American policy, and the European Union policy that led to this moment.
~ Stephen Cohen – professor emeritus at New York University and Princeton University who has long focused on Russia
“The project of the next administration, if it’s Obama, is to smash both Russia and China. … Obama’s foreign policy is to have a global showdown with Russia and China”
~ Historian Webster Tarpley, 2008
Reports of Russian Military Action in Ukraine: Fact and Fiction
by Brandon Turbeville
”As the crisis surrounding Ukraine intensifies hour by hour and the Anglo-American powers posture themselves as defenders of Ukrainian rights - which they themselves have clearly violated with the recent program of destabilization and overthrow of the Ukrainian government - the Russian side moves forward with what it claims is the necessary and proper methods of protecting Russian interests.
As the crisis continues to unfold, the presentation of the facts, particularly on the part of the Western media is not surprisingly skewed and inaccurate. Indeed, the attempts to paint Russia, whatever its faults, as an imperialist aggressor marching toward world domination have reached farcical levels.”
Isaac, you know that I have nothing but contempt for the media, but surely if Obama and our western allies had a secret destabilization plan for the Ukraine in order to install a western-puppet regime, wouldn't you think somebody would report on it, whether respectable journalist or not?
And as far as crushing China, how are we supposed to do that? Economically? Militarily? Or how about coronarilly by building as many fast food joints there so that in 100 years, that nation is as obese and unhealthy as the US?
I'm not saying that the US doesn't have destab. programs around the world in order to get more friendly regimes in place, and we can argue about whether that's a valid foreign policy, but I think you give Obama too much credit. He detests everything to do with foreign policy. If we are responsible for what's happening in the Ukraine, then I doubt seriously if Obama had anything to do with it.
"...wouldn't you think somebody would report on it...."
Did any of them report to you that the CIA overthrew the democratically elected leader of Iran?
((CNN) -- "Sixty years after the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, a declassified CIA document acknowledges that the agency was involved in the 1953 coup.")
Did any of them report to you that Osama bin Laden didn't have anything whatsoever to do with 9/11?
Did any of them report to you that Navy Seals could not have killed Osama bin Laden because Osama bin Laden had died years before?
Did any of them report to you what many people have come to believe, that the Sandy Hook shooting never happened?
[Wolfgang Halbig has the perfect combination of expertise to evaluate what happened at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
law enforcement: Florida State Trooper, US Customs Agent.
education: teacher, assistant principal, principal.
current school safety expert: trained key personnel at over 4,000 US school districts, and over 3,500 school safety officers.
His conclusion after ten months of motivated investigation:
“In my professional opinion, [Sandy Hook was] a scripted event... in planning for maybe two, two and a half years.”
Continued from above: Did any of them report this to you?
WASHINGTON SEEKS REGIME CHANGE IN VENEZUELA
by Garry Leech
Both the ongoing protests in Venezuela and the economic problems that the demonstrators are protesting against appear to have been orchestrated by the opposition in order to destabilize the country and bring down the government. Unable to gain power through the ballot box, the Venezuelan opposition has turned to unconstitutional means to oust President Nicolas Maduro. With only limited support among Venezuelans, the opposition has been dependent on outside aid from the United States and Colombia, Washington’s closest ally in Latin America. The current protests appear to represent the latest tactic in a destabilization campaign that Washington has been waging against Venezuela for more than a decade, initially to overthrow former president Hugo Chávez, and now to oust his successor Maduro.
adapted from:
”WHAT THE US MEDIA WON’T TELL YOU ABOUT UKRAINE”
[The] Four horsemen of the journalism apocalypse afflict overseas reporting:
- Journalistic stenography (where attending a government press conference constitutes research)
- Kneejerk patriotism (where reporters identify with their government and are less likely to question its actions, while at the same time reflexively assuming that rivals of the U.S. are ill-intentioned)
- Jack-of-all-trades journalism (in which the same writers cover too many different beats. A few decades ago, there would have been a bureau chief, or at least a stringer, who knew Ukraine and/or the former Soviet Union because he or she lived there)
- American ahistoricism (the widespread and widely acceptable ignorance of politics and history — especially those of other countries)
~By Ted Rall, author of “Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?” and “The Anti-American Manifesto”)
Do you believe Sandy Hook was staged? If so, by whom and for what purpose?
Certainly the US attempts to affect regime change in countries where bad guys rule. Right or wrong, that's the business we're in. Nobody's disputing that.
Also, do you really think bin Laden dies years ago and the whole raid was staged for Obama's political benefit? Do you think all those SEAL's would keep their mouths shut about their participation in a charade?
I don't have anything against you, personally, Ed, but there are two things about you that bug the hell out of me.
The first is your unshakable faith that everything the U.S.G. does is noble and good.
The second is, you don't seem to care anything about facts and evidence, and that from a scientist! I something fits your pre-conceived ideas, it must be true. If it conflicts with your pre-conceived views, it must be false.
I don't think I have ever seen you investigate a new or novel idea to see if there is merit to it or not.
Even a cursory investigation would show that there are compelling reasons to think that Sandy Hook was staged and that some very credible people have come to that precise conclusion.
And even a cursory investigation would show that it is absolutely certain that Osama bin Laden died years before the raid on the Pakistan compound.
Your observation that one or more of the SEALS might spill the beans is a valid one. There are a number of ways to keep them in line. I can't go into all the ways here but one way would be to murder some of them. The rest would get the message.
If an out of the ordinary number of the involved SEALS died, it would be a red flag that maybe something needed hushing up, wouldn't it?
Well, did SEALS involved in that operation die? How many of them? Under what circumstances?
If the answers to those questions could possibly, conceivably, maybe have damning implications, what other questions ought to be asked and answered in order to prove or disprove the hypothesis?
You think that I think the US Gov. is in any way noble and good? What blog have you been reading, because it's not this one?
And while I thoroughly enjoy debating you and respect your writing and thoughtfulness and that we agree occasionally, here's what bugs me about you:
You seem to have a cult-like devotion to the meme that all government operations, nay all world eventualities, involve some sort of vast US government conspiracy....usually with the help of the dastardly Jews.
You give our government officials far too much credit for being clever enough to pull something off, like staging bin Laden's death or Sandy Hook.
If your source knows these events were staged, how could that information be hidden from the thousands of media types snooping around...and then keep them all quiet? How do you not see the preposterousness of that? And if it was staged, for what purpose? To advance the gun-control agenda a couple of feet if any?
Having said that, I do believe in a much larger conspiracy, and that is the unholy alliance among the international WallStreet bankers, the FED, the SEC, Treasury, the military/industrial complex, and venture capital guys like Soros....all who operate above the level of government and super-Constitutionally regardless of which party pretends to hold power. I believe there is a cabal of man and women who control all the important stuff, leaving nothing to chance while allowing us little people to pretend that our elections mean something and that we have a say in our futures.....we do not.
That level of conspiracy can be pulled off because everybody involved has a huge stake in it remaining a secret. The people required to stage Sandy Hook have no such stake and you'd never keep them quiet.
Let me see if I understand correctly, Ed.
-False flags require careful and extensive planning.
-False flags are difficult to pull off.
-Safeguards must be in place to 1) keep most of the participants in the dark as to what is actually happening and 2) to keep those in the know from blabbing.
Thus, false flag operations do not exist. Q.E.D.
Is that what you want us to believe?
I didn't say they didn't exist, just that they don't exist at this magnitude, involving the number of people required to pull it off.
If you're right, then explain the Sandy Hook hoax. How'd they do it? Who did it and for what purpose? Did they recruit a mildly retarded shooter, give him a gun and some bullets and drop him off at the school?
Or is it your contention that nobody every died at Sandy Hook, that the whole thing was like the moon landing and bin Laden killing, a complete Hollywood production on a sound stage?
It doesn't make sense.
Was 9/11 a hoax too? I know you think the Jews were behind it and that's why a secret email was sent over the secret Jew email tree to tell them all to stay home from work that day. Am I right?
FLASHBACK: "I don't think I have ever seen you investigate a new or novel idea to see if there is merit to it or not."
Still no effort to discern truth, I see, Ed. You believe what you want to believe and disbelieve everything else, all without recourse to any facts at all. At all. At all. I hope you don't do lab work that same way.
Where is your evidence that these conspiracies do exist? You have one website that makes a claim and all the other links to the topic eventually link back to that one site. He didn't present any evidence, just a string of events and assumptions that could be true.
That's not scientific either.
Imagine my surprise. Ed saw what he wanted to see. Who could possibly have seen that coming?
Did he Google "Sandy Hook false flag"? No.
Did he Google "Sandy Hook questions"? No.
Did he Google "Sandy Hook anomalies?" No.
Did he treat a REPRESENTATIVE article, presented in a limited space and in a limiting forum, as though it were the whole body of work on the subject? Yup.
Why? Because he thinks he already knows everything worth knowing on the subject. After all, he watches the evening news, don't you see.
Post a Comment