Translate

Sunday, May 5, 2013





“Off the Cuff” Obama Statement Places the USA into Another Undeclared War—In Syria:  THE OBAMA CURSE!!!
Over thirty years and five different administrations,   I have never witness such incompetency from one president and his novitiate White House as I am seeing right now in what I call the “OBAMA CURSE”!
  As many of you know by now,   I have severely reprimanded the institutions  from which I was borne and molded –be it poorly or well is not for me do to decide---the US military and the US intelligence  community.
 
But never I have never participated in an administration which was/is so chaotic.   I have seen my share of lawlessness in the Nixon pre/post impeachment years [for which Kissinger does deserve credit for singlehandedly  maintaining  a strong foreign policy],   and the tumultuous naivete of the Jimmy Carter administration.
Even Bush Jr and Cheney,  his effective henchman,  never made ‘off the cuff’ foreign policy decisions.   Bush jr and company were malevolent and incisive in their action,  but they were quite experienced in the way of manipulating our USG and our US foreign policy---for good or bad. 
I never witnessed a moment where BushJr  made a conscious or unconscious ‘off the cuff comment’ which precipitate US military involvement in a specific region of the world. 
  The Iraq and Afghanistan conflagrations were replete with lies,  as we have already discussed in previous blogs.   But efficiency has it’s own value in that the action,  as misbegotten as the two wars were,  was initiated quickly and effectively with admittedly terrible consequences. 
But nothing can really be worse than a President of the US who lies,  contrives excuses and then hesitates to take any subsequent actions.
 
Obama’s mouth works faster than his brain or his capacity to measure his actions
  Obama has neither the intelligence nor aptitude to lead anything other than a highly developed  capacity  for  prevarications,  excoriation, and logorrhea [constant verbiage signifying nothing]. 
  This conclusion is neither novel nor insightful.   There were many who had argued this before me and quite correctly.   These were friends [former],  including  serious liberal Democrats,  who implored me not to vote for this affirmative action outcast without any experience of any sort other than being a CIA tool working for Peter Geitner
  These liberals argued that Obama was imposed on the electorate  because Hillary’s  husband,  the philanderer,  would compromise Hillary’s chances of winning  the election,   if the electorate had found out about his “impotent priapism” [a deliberate oxymoron].
I voted for Obama specifically to see how his sociopathy that I had perceived in his character very early in the election would play out in the Presidency.   I predicted that he would become a spitting image of Bill Clinton with respect to corruption and political cronyism because Obama knew nothing about governance and would have to rely his VP Biden,  a complete moron and  former Clinton  staffers.
  Obama’s incompetence in foreign policy is a reflection of the miscreant left overs of the Bush administration’s choir boys.   His domestic policy is constrained by his inexperience and Clinton’s legacy.
  In short,  what we have is a variation of the Rain Man in Barry Levinson’s movie –an ‘idiot savant’ .   He may know how many military soldiers we had around the world but he had no idea of how to formulate or develop a foreign policy.
This arrogance and ignorance shown brightly when he gave his ‘muslim brotherhood speech’,   empty nonsensical words followed by the most absurd action any normal person could discern—Winning the Nobel Peace Prize . 
Obama’s  true character abounded aplenty when he went full force into Afghanistan with hardly an idea of a strategy or tactic;  other than mumbling some words like Taliban or Terrorists blah, blah..etc. 
I maintained  that he was not very bright,  even quite ignorant about any matter that did not involve his own preservation;   but,   I argued years ago that he had major defects in his character ----like VERACITY, COURAGE, CONSISTENCY, TOLERANCE and even decency.
  Sometimes I hate to be right because not only do I lose friends with my unpopular opinions  but the truth can be ugly.    No one believed that we had voted in an IDIOT SAVANT –CORRUPTED WITH HIS VAIN IGNORANCE AND HIS SANGFROID.
But in all fairness to myself,  I am not that important that I can or will determine the outcome of any election in the USG  (overseas was another story)
Both his administrations have been predictably earmarked by incompetence both in domestic affairs and especially in foreign affairs—e.g. reaffirming the validity of 9/11;  announcing  his vainglorious success of ‘personally’ having been responsible for the ‘death’ the ‘ghost of Osama bin laden’;   then the fuzzy logic of the snafu called ‘the Benghazi affair’ where General Petraeus, DCI was ‘overthrown ‘ by John Brennan.
  Then folks,  there is Obamacare.   As a physician who is also a patient.   I can tell you ‘off the cuff’ that if I were you ---I wouldn’t get sick!.
  The whole of Obamacare is nothing but ‘smoke and mirrors.’   Insurance premiums jumped up almost 20% in anticipation of  the insurance companies having to insure a ‘greater population’.
  Well-trained physician are leaving the medical field.   I know of a particular family of three doctors –none have opted in for Obama care.
  There will arise a serious division between elite MEDICAL CARE and that provided for the masses.
 Doctors will barely see patients.   Right now they only have about 3-5 minutes to see each patient.
  Foreign doctors,  not as well trained as American doctors,  will be the no choice choice,   just like Obama.
  Therefore,  America,  welcome to the America’s worst president—OBAMA—the ‘off-the-cuff’ decision maker.
  While he is pulling on his shirt cuffs,  our US Air Force Jet planes are ready to strike Syria.   Thanks to a president and a WH staff who never had to fight a war. 
  And unlike OBAMA  our US military doesn’t have the LUXURY  TO ENGAGE IN ‘OFF-THE-CUFF’ RULES OF ENGAGEMENT ;  STRATEGY;  TACTICS;  SPECIAL OPERATIONS; SURGICAL STRIKES;  NAVAL DEPLOYMENT;  DE-MINING;  CONTAINMENT;  MISSION CREEP; and  HUMANITARIAN RELIEF.
  In the long run,  I have always argued that we do not need a Clinton,  a Bush Jr , and now certainly not AN OBAMA. 

In fact we Americans don’t need a President of the USG.
  Remember,   President Woodrow Wilson---considered one of the great 20th century president was in a COMA FOR ONE-AND-A-HALF YEARS!
  Come on,  America,  let’s try it!
Let’s start by not electing slick willies,  malignant criminals and idiot savants. 
 The Presidential Circus is costly and dangerous!
 But that is only my ‘off the cuff’ impression!
Try it!  We can’t do worse and  we save LIVES and MONEY!!!
  George Washington warned us close to three hundred years ago about the dangers of an Obama. 
 
President Woodrow Wilson:
“Liberty has never come from the government.  Liberty has always come from the subjects of it.  The history of liberty is a history of resistance”
We the United States of America are not fit to sit in judgment of Syria, Afghanistan,  Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Mali, Lebanon, Vietnam………..
Defeat,  more slaughter,  and self-destruction will  be  the  legacy  of  the Obama Curse!!!!
   

42 comments:

  1. Dr. Pieczenick you have just made the most sinister statement I've seen from anyone in a long, long time.

    "Kissinger should be commended for a strong foreign policy."

    What have you been smoking?

    Every American should see the film, "The Trial of Henry Kissinger."

    It's an accurate film, and it portrays his many crimes against humanity and the American Constitution and way of life [which he as a foreigner and a rich Jew has no concept of].

    Here are a few crimes...

    1.the murder of Chief of Staff of the Chilean Army because he wanted to uphold their constitution and not go along with a facist coup.

    2.the facist coup in Chile, which resulted in the sadistic rape and torture and murder of tens of thousands of constitutionalists and democrats, almost none of whom were even communists!

    3.giving the green light to Suharto to invade and rape and kill and torture the inhabitants of East Timor.

    4.the bombing of thousands of Cambodian villages, killing, amputating, and otherwise creating hell for one million Cambodians for NOT STRATEGIC BENEFIT TO THE UNITED STATES!

    5.the Christmas bombing of North Vietnam merely to demonstrate to the government of South Vietnam that the US would bomb North Vietnamese cities because the US was "crazy."

    But the absolute worst thing about Kissinger wasn't merely that he was ruthless, it's that he was profoundly stupid! He was the worst strategic thinker there ever was, and he was so bad that most scholars think he wasn't motivated by strategy at all, but by acedemic ideology.

    In particular....

    His whole strategy for southeast Asia was based on the assumption that a US withdrawl would be perceived by the USSR and China as lack of resolve, when in fact they had no such perception and thought the opposite. In fact they thought the whole policy was a function of US lunacy.

    He also thought US prestige and credibilty with America's allies would be irreparably damaged by a US withdrawl when in fact the allies were screaming at the US to get the hell out of there.

    He's not only a mass murderer who destroys whole countries with immense violence, but he does so for no benefit to any American.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I dispise Obama for his total duplicity and phonyness. This is the guy who made a personal telephone call to a pro athlete last week to "congratulate" him for "coming out" and declaring his homosexuality to the public.

    But as for comparing him to other Presidents I'd say the five you worked for, excpet for Carter, were much, much more sinister.

    Bush and Reagan created the war in Afghanistan, and fought a meaningless war of terror in Central America which brought untold horror and suffering with no benefit to the US whatsoever.

    Ford was a truely sinister figure who covered up the Kennedy assassination, elevated Rumsfeld and Cheney to high station, gave the green light to Suharto regarding E. Timor, and allowed the US military to be completely neglected after Vietnam [it took Harold Brown under Carter to re-build it].

    As for Nixon, he was a murderous madman in international affairs who is responsible for everything Kissinger did.

    I'd say next to these horrors the stupidity of Obama is pretty tame.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Now for a personal note...

    Here is the stupid story of my first experience with the CIA, when I was twelve years old in 6th grade.

    A couple of weeks before 6th grade began in 1971 I was walking by the playground of my elementary school and I saw this elderly man playing with a todler, perahps a four year old girl. He was pudgy, bald, and had a grey moustach. I remember him kneeling down and holding out his arms as the girl ran to him and they embraced tenderly. He seemed like a sweet man, perhaps the girl's grandfather.

    Two weeks later it turned out that this man was the new principal, Max Winkler. Later I was to learn that Max Winkler was a retired CIA officer who had worked in JM/WAVE in Miami with David Phillips and David Morales.

    My best buddy at the time was a Richard, who was my age but somewhat shorter [I was tall for my age] and he lived in a house behind a greenbelt in which we used to build cabins, fortresses, treehouses, and similar stuff as well as test homemade bazokas fashioned from Estes rockets....

    But another kid our age lived nearby at that kid's name was Bruce, a very tall, thin, sullen and dreary Dude who had a lot to be unhappy about. His mother was a delusional szichophrenic who made a habit of making various claims about myself. Once she told my grandmother that I had been breaking into their house at night and stealing all their food [you know, the normal stuff from szichos].

    ReplyDelete
  4. But Bruce had yet other reasons to be sullen [I knew him for ten years and never saw him smile].

    He had an older brother who was six foot seven and was a sociopath. He was a very poor student, a bully, and had the worst reputation of anyone in the school district. Bruce told me when he was younger his brother would tie him to a chair and torture him.

    One day Max Winkler called me and Richard into his office and accused us, based on a visit from Bruce's mother, of vicously bullying Bruce.

    Denying this had no effect, and apparently he hadn't bothered asking anyone else about my reputation there, or Richards, or asked anyone there anything about the topic. He's just made up his mind.

    Then he said this...

    He said if I didn't leave Bruce alone his older brother was going to "beat the shit out of me," and that he [Max Winkler] thought that's what I deserved.

    Pretty sinister stuff. Rather crazy I thought at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  5. After Richard and I exited Max Winkler's office we were walking and I said to Richard,"I don't care what that old man says!"

    Well somebody apparantly heard that remark and told Max Winkler.

    In the following days I suffered various stupid indignities at the hands of Max Winkler, and it was a whistlblower in his office who informed me that it was because of my defiant remark about his age.

    Well my father then got involved.

    My father was a Korean war POW who was captured and mistreated by the N. Koreans because he was accused of being a partisan, or spy. My father was a little un-hinged because of this, and in Korea he worked for OPC, and thereafter worked for CIA, such as in Guatamala in 1954, where he worked with David Phillips, as had Max Winkler.

    But Max and my father, Lee, didn't know this, and neither even knew that each other had done government work.

    So here I am in Max Winkler's office, my father ready to throttle and perhaps kill Max Winkler...

    I honestly thought my father might kill him. I'd seen my father kill many animals before, as we used to hunt all the time and our house was full of guns everywhere...I really thought my father would just kill him.

    The two men yelling and carrying on like children while sat there in total bewilderment.

    At the end however my father had sufficiently intimidated Max Winkler that he never bothered me again.

    Now that tells you how utterly stupid CIA is.

    ReplyDelete
  6. In the following years I heard from others that Max Winkler was a hater of President Kennedy, and blamed him for his "betrayl" at the Bay of Pigs, and other stupid things.

    One person told me Winkler referred to Kennedy as, "an immoral degenerate who wasn't fit to be President of anything."

    More about Max Winkler later....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh by the way all this happened in the town of New Braunfels, Texas, just north of San Antonio.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I guess you could say Max Winkler was a violent, moralistic zealot prone to act on un-verified and patently false information. Go figure.

    As for my father...

    He used to shoot at any stray dog that would wander in our yard.

    Once we saw a classified ad in the paper wanting to know who shot that person's doberman, which had to be treated for numerous birdshot wounds.

    That was my Dad.

    ReplyDelete
  9. It seems strange today but we had no problema popping off gunshot rounds in the yard, which was in the middle of a nice, upper-class residential neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. it is LONG PAST YOUR PROBATIONARY WRITING PROSE moves forward to create your own blog; mea culpas are for your own site, and our not appreciated here.

      OFF YOU GO INTO THE WILD BLUE YONDER.

      Delete
    2. "In Neu Braunfels ist das leiben schoon" is the slogan of this place, where my family has lived since 1851. I'm the first generation which didn't grow up speaking primarily German.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. Patriarch and Anaconda,

      You are both morons who have no experience whatsoever in government work, know nobody involved in it, and have no basis for your lunatic opinions.

      Keep watching for those black helicopters.

      =o)

      Delete
    5. Actually I think Patriarch could be a soul-mate if not family member of Max Winkler.

      Delete
    6. Or said another way, I'm certain Patriarch would find someone like Max Winkler to be "a patriot" committed to being "loyal to the American people..."

      I'm NOT.

      Delete
    7. you need a mother VERY VERY BADLY. GET OFF THE NARCS.

      Delete
    8. the "narcs?"

      You can come up with something better than that. Use your imagination for a change.

      Delete
  10. Obama does not have an autism spectrum disorder; he suffers from MALIGNANT pathological narcissism and severe identity issues. (Lying is his Truth)
    He makes it up contemporaneously as a student cramming all night to finish a term paper.
    The film, "Wag the Dog" is far more appropriate especially with the fake Bin Ladin video saga:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNDmDZi05dY

    From my reading, he remedies his neuro-psychological chaos with nicotine and cocaine cocktails.
    A witness, Sam Kuwata, to his erratic behavior prior to accepting his nomination at the Denver DNC Convention in 2008 was murdered in California:
    "It was too damn weird, right? What the hell happened in that room? How could one man walk in and another man walk out? We’re talking two extremes here…Obama was just about carried into that room…and he comes out…he’s bouncing off the f-cking walls..."
    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/18/white-house-insider-you-dont-ever-wanna-do-the-things-ive-done/

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/20/white-house-insider-i-hung-my-head/

    http://theulstermanreport.com/2012/01/22/the-death-of-a-political-operative-the-troubling-timeline/

    Timeline:
    Tony West – an attorney at the law firm defending Barack Obama’s birth certificate matters raises $65 Million for Barack Obama’s election. His sister-in-law Kamala Harris is the District Attorney for San Francisco.
    Kam Kuwata tells others (likely Sen. Feinstein) of weird Obama stuff he saw at the convention.
    Obama elected with huge illegal campaign (25% of what he raises) coming through a SINGLE California bank) much from Tony West. Rumors swirl of up to $300 Million in undeclared campaign contributions are not reported or those donors.
    Feinstein’s aide and Kuwata’s business partner BOTH indicted and sent to prison by soon to be Dem Governor Cuomo of NY.
    Kuwata works against CA Attorney General Kamala Harris to put in a CA AG who can investigate Obama campaign donations.
    A few months later highly active Kuwata found 2 weeks dead in his apartment.
    The same month Tony West is appointed as Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Division reporting to Eric Holder at the Department of (so called) Justice.
    At Kuwata’s memorial, Feinstein very strangely “scooped” the President with the news of Osama Bin Laden death by 1 hour. Feinstein and intelligence knew of OBL location since January. Some wonder if this was a warning to Obama.
    DOJ does not investigate Kuwata’s death.
    A month later, former CA Obama Committee chairwoman embezzles millions in funds from Feinstein’s campaign and others including Obama’s CA funds. This critically impairs Feinstein’s reelection hopes.
    Feinstein charged with ethics violations.
    Kamala Harris found to be in pocket of public sector unions scuttling initiative on their behalf.
    Kamala Harris named Co-Chairwoman of the Obama Campaign.
    CA AG Kamala Harrisand the NY AG replacing Gov Cuomo refuse to follow the law on failed mortgages, threatening the FDIC and creating a $25 Billion Mortgage settlement that:
    Gives 70% of the money to government programs
    Penalizes stockholders, brokers who never admitted guilt in due process
    Allows the REAL perpetrators of the mortgage crisis (both public and private) to skate without ANY prosecution. (Very good explanation here.)
    It also gives her a slush fund of over $1 Billion to preside over.
    Tony West is appointed Assistant Attorney General of the United States under Eric Holder.
    American Bar Association Journal reports Kamala Harris be considered as next Supreme Court Justice replacing Ruth Bader Ginsberg.
    http://gulagbound.com/tag/crime-criminals/feed/
    ------
    OBAMA has been trouble since the gay murder of the Choir director at Rev. Wrights church, and is reportedly homosexual in mind, spirit, and activity.
    When you have no identity and have sexual conflicts, what would you expect from a propped up puppet: you can be compromised, blackmailed and molded by your handlers (Brzezinski,the man who is creating a Police State in America).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hate to say this Patriarch, but I agree with you entirely on this matter.

      You have Obama pegged accurately.

      Delete
    2. There's a gay businessman on Youtube who is very credible and claims he shared cocaine with Obama and got a bj from him.

      He's a credible person.

      Delete
    3. If you wanna see how pathological a liar Obama is find the pieces on Youtube where is claims he had an uncle "who liberated Auzchwitz" and that he "went up into the attack after the war and didn't come out for six months..."

      Nothing like that really happened.

      Obama never had an uncle in the war, Auschwitz was liberated by the Russians, and no one in his family spent six months in an attack.

      Obama is a pure pathological liar who is so incredibly sick in his lies and confabulations and stories it's pathetic.

      The truth is he's a total drug user, sucks on guys cocks for kicks, chain smokes Camels in private, and all the time he was a "community organizer" he never accomplished anything for anyone except for lining his own pockets with CASH!!!

      Delete
    4. I mean six month in an attic, not an "attack."

      Sorry again for my continual mistakes.

      Delete
  11. I agree with MITmichael's view of Kissinger.

    Strange that MITmichael heavily criticises Obama, but seemingly supports the Syrian Obama policy.

    (Yes, I have my hobby horses, too, but at least the Obama/Brzezinski policy of Syrian destabilization using terrorist tactics was the genesis for Dr. Pieczenik's denounciation of Obama.)

    But the rest of MITmichael multiple comments tends to be a distraction from the failure of the Obama Syrian policy.

    I agree with Dr. Pieczenik regarding Obama, but there is more to it. There is an intellectual underpinning developed from the 'think tanks' supported by the elite of various political stripes that drives U. S. foreign policy.

    Obama's foreign policy didn't come from a 'black box' tucked in the back of Obama's mind.

    Obama reads his lines, the phrases and policies are not original thoughts or policies based on Obama's political experience or geo-political understanding.

    Dr. Pieczenik puts all the blame on Obama, and Obama deserves the criticism he gets, but focussing on one individual is to miss the institutional support for the policies Obama's administration has implimented.

    Zbigniew Brzezinski, former Carter National Security Advisor, is the snake's head for this institutional support of a neo-imperial policy & tactics, which include using terrorist tactics such as indiscriminate large-scale bombings, summary execution, and large-scale infustructure destruction.

    Read the writings coming out of the Council of Foreign Relations or the Rand Corporation.

    I get the idea of selling or focussing on the failures of a individual as opposed to the group, so as to give an opportunity for those in the group to peel off and change their ways.

    An important aspect of politics is to give an honorable way to change positions and one way to do that is to give absolution to the group and crucify an individual.

    Not that Obama doesn't deserve being singled out for blame and incompetence, but individuals pass from the scene, institutions and institutional memory continue on -- often lead by tutitular heads like Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    Brzezinski is often viewed as a reasonable & prudent Realist, but this is a false meme. In reality, Brzezinski is a neo-imperialist who promotes destabilization in the Middle East, in the Caucasus, in the Caspian Basin, and in Central Asia.

    And a central feature of that destabilization policy is employing terrorist tactics.

    Americans never voted on this kind of perpetual war policy. Yes, during the Cold War against the Soviets, one can argue there was a tacit support for any covert action to rollback the Soviet threat.

    But the Cold War is over and that tacit support for covert action from the American People does not exist.

    Dr. Pieczenik, remember why you dropped your membership to the Council of Foreign Relations.

    Dr. Pieczenik wrote: "As many of you know by now, I have severely reprimanded the institutions from which I was borne and molded – be it poorly or well is not for me do to decide --- the US military and the US intelligence community."

    One of my purposes for contributing to this forum is to encourage Dr. Pieczenik in his evolution from government, foreign agent to conscientious objector, who has personal knowledge which can provide greater knowledge for his readers.

    I look to Dr. Pieczenik for information which only he can provide based on his personal experience and insight.

    Keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I read what comes out of the CFR and Rand and I haven't seen anything purporting what you're suggesting. Nor do I interpret or conclude that Brzesinski is an advocate for covert action in central asia. Nor do I see any coherent policy regarding Syria.

      I think Brezesinski has been publicly quoted, and transcribed so on this board, saying that US support in Libya and Syria is for damage-limiting purposes, and I'm certain that's correct.

      The policy in Syria is ad-hoc, with no grand strategy involved. The Saudis are pouring in money and arms all going purported Islamists, some of whom actually are. The US is seeking to support others but has very few options. The turks are chosing who they want. The US is trying to keep the real Islamists from gaining too much of an upper hand but that's a fool's mission. What the Saudis are doing will determine everything.

      Delete
    2. Obama is surrounded by people like Samantha Powers, Bob Kerry, and Susan Rice in addition to Brennan.

      I don't think Brezezinski has the influence you are suggesting.

      The Powers and Rices are not strategic thinkers. They are technocratic idealists dealing with the nat-stings which preoccupy the American media today.

      There are no rival great powers for the US to compete against anymore and there are no crusading zealots who have Obama's ear.

      Delete
    3. I mean John Kerry, not Bob. I wish it were Bob, but it's that scoundrel John instead.

      Delete
    4. MIT! Good argument and not even a hint of "idiot" or " moron" so let us all air opinion and learn

      Delete
    5. Look I'm sorry for being intemperant, but it happens when I reply reasonably (though in dissent) to something Dr.P has posted, and then someone bashes me with, "We all know you're un-American," or "Everyone here thinks you're the anti-Christ..." and so that's when things get stupid.

      Delete
  12. And now on a personal note....

    "The Two Lees"

    In Texas in the early 1960s there were two young CIA operators named Lee who had this in common..

    They were both recruited by ONI from the Navy because they had no fathers and were loners with little connection to family and had a crazy mother back home in Texas who they'd send extra money too.

    Both Lees loved the idea of being important, and being asked to do important government work by serious covert action officers even though they had very little education and were very young. To both Lees this was irresistable.

    One of the Lees was highly intelligent, and had a genius-level accumen for acquiring languages and technical skills as well as simple understanding. He was asked to perform assignments which required deft, verbal acumen, and thought.

    That Lee's last name was Oswald, and many of thouse who knew him in Texas called him, "Ozzy-wazzy."

    The other Lee was less intelligent, and therefore performed much less demanding tasks, however often involving firearms, and rifles in particular, for which he was extremely proficient. He preferred Mausers, the Winchester 264 and Remington 7mm magnum.

    That Lee's name wasn't Oswald.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, Brzezinski is behind the Obama foreign policy. He has been behind Obama since the beginning of this career. Subversion using Islamic militants, beginning with the founding of "Al Qaeda" to "give the Soviets their Vietnam" was his policy in the Carter administration, of which he is still proud. I used to think there was some difference between Brzezinski and the Neocons, but I can't tell any difference any more. Maybe the Neocons are a little more Israel-centered, but they are equally imperialistic.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Having worked with the Afghan Task Force I can tell you the actual truth on this one matter if no other.....

      Brzezinski and DCI Stansfield Turner and President Zia first created the Afghan mujahadeen in 1980 but only as a very limited force because they didn't want to provoke the Soviets into attacking Pakistan in retaliation.

      It wasn't until Reagan/DCI Casey came in 1981 that the mujahadeen was ramped up, and then ramped up again in 1985 [which prompted myself and others to leave the unit].

      It was Reagan and Casey who pushed to Afghan mujahadeen, not Brzezinski/Turner/Carter.

      Now please explain how Obama is a hand puppet of Brzesinski when he only speaks with him occassionally but sees Kerry, Rice and Powers every day???????

      There's no evidence to support your assertion, merely conjecture which is at the heart of such confabulations, which are spun by the likes of Tarpley, et al so they can sell books and MAKE MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  14. MITmichael wrote: "The policy in Syria is ad-hoc, with no grand strategy involved."

    That's not what this New Yorker article by Seymour Hersh, Annals of National Security, The Redirection, March 5, 2007 says:

    "The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

    And this:

    "To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda."

    Seymour Hersh, The Redirection

    So, according to Hersh, MITmichael's statement is wrong.

    Syria has been on the planning board for many years.

    I've gone over the facts & evidence for this Syria destabilization operation a couple of times with MITmichael. When confronted with contradictory evidence, MITmichael fails to discuss the evidence.

    MITmichael wrote: "The Powers and Rices are not strategic thinkers."

    Agreed, the strategic thinkers are somewhere else with Brzezinski's intellectual lead as tutitular head of this aggressive policy.

    Yes, the Council of Foreign Relations and Rand Corp. don't specifically delineate terrorism.

    But to fulfill their policy prescriptions, terrorism is often in the "tool box" of options.

    Remember terrorism is a tactic.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Once again you are misinterpreting.

      What Hersh says is that the islamist Sunnis are not being assisted purposefully, but as...

      "a by-product."

      A BY-PRODUCT.

      I don't think he could be more clear about that.

      Hersh is saying that the Sunnis are not being aided directely or purposefully at all.

      He's specifically saying that the Sunnis are BENEFITING AS A BY-PRODUCT of the weakening of the regime which was a goal of covert action, but not using terrorism or islamist Sunnis.

      It's this kind of misinterpretation which is used by Alex Jones and Tarpley to claim that evidence exists for their claims when it does not.

      Delete
  15. MITmichael, I do appreciate your "grasping the nettle" by discussing the quotes provided.

    That is progress and it needs to be acknowledged.

    As for the actual analysis, itself, it's false.

    The "by-product" of Sunni extremism is like the by-product from producing a chemical product at a factory and other by-products are also produced that need to be disposed of in some fashion.

    A by-product, isn't what you are attempting to manufacture, but is an inevitable result, just as production of carbon dioxide is a by-product of breathing air.

    So, let's go back to MITmichael's statement:

    "He's specifically saying that the Sunnis are BENEFITING AS A BY-PRODUCT of the weakening of the regime which was a goal of covert action, but not using terrorism or islamist Sunnis."

    Please, how do you weaken the Syrian regime?

    By using Sunni islamist extremists, who are given weapons including bomb-making materials and extremist tactics are well known... as in "extremist terror tactics".

    But all this is a distraction, as is MITmichael's usual style, here, on this website.

    What MITmichael origninally wrote was that there was no organized plan to weaken Syria or topple Assad, that it was "ad-hoc".

    MITmichael wrote: "The policy in Syria is ad-hoc, with no grand strategy involved."

    But now, after being forced to grapple with the Seymour Hersh, New Yorker article, The Redirection, MITmichael is forced to admit, although, obliquely as possible, that there is an organized plan to weaken or topple the Assad government.

    Of course, MITmichael had to admit this to have any credibility on this board, as most readers have done the research and know there is a plan to weaken or topple Assad and the U. S. government is a major actor along with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey (with a willing Israeli government standing on the sidelines...oops, not "on the sidelines" anymore after the unprovoked Israeli military attack on Syria).

    But MITmichael is concerned: Identifying terrorist tactics as part of Zbigniew Brzezinski's geo-political toolbox goes a long way to discredit Brzezinski's intellectual framework.

    Brzezinski's geo-political calculus depends on terrorist tactics to reach fruition. That is the ulgly "seeing how sausage is made" part of the policy. It is not talked about in polite society, but those that are down in the dirt know to make the policy work terrorism needs to be employed.

    But the American People don't support terrorist tactics.

    When your ally Saudi Arabia is providing weapons and explosive materials and after a couple of years with terrorist tactics of indiscriminate large bombings, summary execution including torture & beheading, and large-scale infrusture destruction, it's obvious there was little concern about extremist by-products.

    MITmichael, Brzezinski has been exposed for the David Rockefeller, imperial apparatchik that he always was. But I'll admit Brzezinski was more than an apparatchik, he is the tutitular head and intellectual leader of a whole pack of Council of Foreign Relations members who support destabilization and with it terroristic tactics and the rise of islamic extremism.

    Look, if after several years (or is it decades) of using the same strategy & tactics and everytime extremism and terrorist acts are the result, then, at some point it is not simply a "by-product", which MITmichael would like to imply is 'unintended', but rather is a known result that must be factored into any analysis.

    I appreciate MITmichael's grasping the nettle.

    But that doesn't make him anymore right than before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I need to make a correction, MITmichael moved the goalposts more than causing a distraction.

      MITmichael moved the goalposts when he changed his proposition from, "The policy in Syria is ad-hoc, with no grand strategy involved," to Sunni extremism was a by-product of the policy.

      Zbigniew Brzezinski is a student of history.

      Likely, he studied Operation Ajax, the 1953 Iranian coup d'état which overthrew the democratically elected government of Iran, and its head of government Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, on 19 August 1953, where terrorism was a prime tactic of the British & U. S. governments.

      Yes, Brzezinski didn't invent terrorism, but his geo-political strategies rely on terrorism as a prime facet or tool in the ol' geo-political toolbox.

      Apparently, MITmichael supports terrorism as he is determined to defend operations where terrorism is the prime tool as is the case in Syria.

      What a peach.

      Delete
  16. MITmichael makes a statement about how Sunni extremism and terrorist tactics are just some unintended "by-product".

    The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom - noted:

    "Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world."

    Odom also said:

    "By any measure the US has long used terrorism. In ‘78-79 the Senate was trying to pass a law against international terrorism – in every version they produced, the lawyers said the US would be in violation."

    Just an unitended by-product? Not according to Gen. Odom.

    From American Hegemony: How to Use It, How to Lose It, by General William Odom.

    ReplyDelete
  17. 1.The US doesn't want Assad to be toppled because an Islamist government in Syria would destablize Lebanon and spell the doom of Israel. Israel is beating down the doors of the US government begging us not to let Assad go down the tubes this way.

    2.If the US was trying to get rid of Assad he would be out by now. There would have been a much more visable effort. It's well known that 90% of the aid is coming from the Saudis, and it's going only to people claiming to be islamists, and some actually are.

    3.You haven't proven anything about Hersh...

    Hersh says "by-product," meaning it's not the goal of American policy, but is a CONSEQUENCE...

    What Hersh is saying is that it's not the intended or purposeful policy that the Sunnis be empowered in this way but it's happening as an un-desired BY-PRODUCT.

    If he meant otherwise he would have said...

    "The US policy of supporting the Islamist Sunnis..."

    ReplyDelete
  18. This thread is long in the tooth.

    We'll have to agree to disagree.

    But I can't help commenting on this statement:

    MITmichael wrote: "The US doesn't want Assad to be toppled because an Islamist government in Syria would destablize Lebanon and spell the doom of Israel. Israel is beating down the doors of the US government begging us not to let Assad go down the tubes this way."

    Wrong.

    So is Obama and all the rest who say, "Assad must go," lying?

    So, is the Washington Post which had a report that the U.S. was coordinating the transfer of weapons into Syria full of shit?

    Washington Post (May 15, 2012): "Syrian rebels battling the regime of President Bashar al-Assad have begun receiving significantly more and better weapons in recent weeks, an effort paid for by Persian Gulf nations and coordinated in part by the United States, according to opposition activists and U.S. and foreign officials."

    On this issue you are wrong.

    Regarding Israel, no, Israel benefits from weakened and fragmented neighbors. Any Islamist government in Syria would be incredibly weak and riven with fractions.

    Syria would be like Libya, but much worse.

    The Golan Hights would be permanently in Israel sovereignty.

    Stop being a shill for a failed policy.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Of course Obama is saying that Assad must go because he has no choice but to play the role of the outraged American President on the moral highground against Assad the child killer...

    But in reality every agency of the US government would rather have Assad than the rebels because the strongest of them are Islamists armed by Saudi Arabia.

    The wahhabist Saudis are behind the rebels because Assad is a baathist/secular tryrant just as Saddam was, and the wahhabists in Saudi Arabia want both these secular guys dead!

    They succeeded in Iraq and now they're going after Syria.

    The US has no control over what the Saudis are doing, and so are cooperating with them a little to maintain a window into what's going on, BUT THAT'S ALL...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Obama = second rate satanist and gigolo specialising in males. you guys are earnest, sincere, clever. you can quote from books exhaustingly. yet you dont see that they are ALL 1. jews or their girlfriends 2. satanists 3. cowering blindly at the feet of something else. theres murder parties ...theres hunting kids with dogs...theres blood drinking...theres soldiers etc being hypnotised to such an extent theyre robots...can you not see american foreig policy is either israels or zionist or this something else? america is being uttery destroyed. yet all you guys can go on about....and on and on and on...IS ANYTHING ELSE.

    ReplyDelete