An Apology for this Latest Sabbatical as I Have Been Tracking Events as They Unfold
Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize to each of your for my latest sabbatical from blogging. For a bit, I needed a break from the chaos that occurs by the multitudes weekly, meaning of course two or more different events of significance daily. However, I found myself tracking a great deal of what I transpiring, and by way of this, some information is at best frightening; at worst, it points to a potential catastrophic global war which socialism always leads to. Appeasement is only part of the tale if one recalls from reading your history texts of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain declaring "... there is peace in our time" following his infamous conference in Munich with Adolf Hitler.
The infamous clip of Chamberlain ignominious proclamation upon returning to London from Munich can be viewed below:
The infamous clip of Chamberlain ignominious proclamation upon returning to London from Munich can be viewed below:
Worse still is the rising tide of centralized banking crashing in nations such as Switzerland and Libya, and now apparently Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine just received yet another bailout from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to the tune of approximately $17 billion for this year and some $40 billion to tide Kiev through the next three years.When centralized banks collapse, the global economic and monetary systems are soon to follow. As Switzerland is among the world's major banking infrastructures, debt finally proved to be insurmountable as its central bank issued as of last fall a negative interest rate and, therefore, the inevitable negative rate of inflation akin to what the Eurozone instituted from Brussels. When interest rates were 20% or more from the late 1970's through the first three years of the Reagan presidency, it comprised of the plurality of all national debt to the public and our international creditors. Today, what is transpiring in Europe even through austerity is beginning to diffuse even to our own Federal Reserve: what debt is being accumulated is not in interest, but in real monetary terms due to quantitative easing (QE) killing most all rates of interest.
The national interest rate stands at a microscopic 0.25%, which encourages banking and lending firms to issue loans and mortgages to more and more unqualified just as what transpired in 1993 during the Clinton presidency, where the president in an effort to drive up home ownership rapidly deregulated much of these standards that led to the financial crash of 2007-8. Not surprisingly by 2010, the rise of the Arab Spring led to the toppling of governments all across the Arab League, many of whom were financially insolvent even as their level of poverty was already too great a burden to alleviate. To consider too that Europe now is bordering on bankruptcy itself due to rising debt through the failure of austerity to be adequately administered (raised taxes, a systemic decrease in total public and state expenditures) led to what we recall to be a scenario similar to stagflation during the 1970's. Greece and Spain are experiencing massive unemployment to the tune of more than 25% even as the euro has been deflated to where it takes more of one monetary unit to purchase a unit of one good. The rise of Neo Nazis in Europe (i.e. - Greece's Golden Dawn party) is now shifting still more to a rising tide of Marxist parties in those nations desperate for answers. To consider Obama is funding Neo Nazi rebel forces fighting to preserve Ukraine from Russian expansionism should serve notice of what it is the Obama foreign policy is. Is Obama a "red line" foreign policy where the mediation of conflicts begets a metaphorical Maginot Line that collapses upon provocation, or are these policies merely the public's visceral fodder for a "wag the dog" mirage where the smoke is only so thick as the casual onlooker is willing to acknowledge?
I hope to address this issue in part in this blog on President Obama's letter to Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, who provided ISIS with a consulate in Ankara and still grants political asylum to key figures within the Muslim Brotherhood.
I hope to address this issue in part in this blog on President Obama's letter to Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan, who provided ISIS with a consulate in Ankara and still grants political asylum to key figures within the Muslim Brotherhood.
Part I: Obama's Letter Dated September 14, 2012 to Turkey's Erdogan
As I live in Tennessee, one politician who forever changed the state's dynamic regarding a political system was the late Sen. Howard Baker. Baker was the Senate Majority Leader from 1981 through 1987 and served under Ronald Reagan as his Chief of Staff. Baker was most notable for his now-famous line during the Watergate hearings "What did the president know and when did he know it?"
This video footage is courtesy of the Baker Center for Public Policy at my alma mater, The University of Tennessee. Sen. Baker earned his undergraduate degree at UT and his J.D. at Tulane University in New Orleans. Fred Thompson, the former U.S. Senator also from my home state and currently is an actor in Hollywood, narrated this account of his former employer. Sen. Baker, though far from a Reagan conservative, was a conviction politician and was frequently reference as the most amenable to compromise as well as a mitigator of inner-chamber conflicts.
What indeed does Obama know and when did he know it? That lurid tale of a web spun will difficult to pinpoint as to which one or if there are a multitude of spindles that were employed. For starters, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) will provide specific details regarding the letters leaked by the Syria Electronic Army (SEA). That alongside other details will in my mind condemn President Obama and even Sen. John McCain to being at least complicit and perhaps outright guilty of treason and for aiding, abetting and comforting a State Department declared international terrorist organization in ISIS dating to December 17, 2004, or the second year of the Iraqi occupation.
February 11, 2015 Special Dispatch No.5964Turkish Media Reports: Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) Leaks Official Confidential Turkish Documents From 2012, Exposing Turkish, Saudi, And Qatari Support For Terrorist GroupsTurkish media have been reporting on Syrian Electronic Army (SEA) leaks of secret and confidential material that it obtained by hacking email communications of top strategic Turkish government agencies – including the president's and prime minister's offices, the Foreign and Defense Ministries, and the Air Force Command, between March 2009 and November 2012.[1] Also leaked were a personal letter from U.S. President Barack Obama to then-prime minister (now president) Recep Tayyip Erdogan requesting his help,[2] messages from [then] U.S. Ambassador Francis Ricciardone to Turkish Foreign Ministry officials, and the U.S's transition plans in Syria, which had been shared only with Turkey, the U.K., France, and Germany.The following are excerpts from Turkish media reports on SEA's leak:Turkish Daily Zaman: In Leaked Letter, Obama Asks PM Erdogan For Help To Calm Muslims And Curb Violence In Reaction To "Anti-Muhammad Video"On February 9, 2015, the Turkish daily Today's Zaman reported that the SEA hackers had posted on their website (leaks.sea.sy) a private letter from President Obama to then-prime minister Erdogan on September 14, 2012, noting:[3] "In the letter, which begins 'Dear Tayyip,' Obama voices his concerns about a possible attack on U.S. diplomats following the release of a short video titled 'Innocence of Muslims' [which was being blamed for the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi three days earlier]. The video has anti-Islamic undertones and it is perceived as denigrating the Prophet Muhammad."When the 14-minute video was uploaded to the Internet on Sept. 11, 2012 in Egypt, it led to large-scale protests that were also replicated around the world. As a result of clashes with police, about 100 people were injured and 50 died."Obama asked Erdoğan to 'speak out immediately and forcefully before people go to Friday prayers': 'I believe that you are one of the most credible voices in the Islamic world today, and that if people hear you calling for calm and condemning violence it will have a real impact,' stated Obama in his letter to Erdoğan, adding: 'It will be important to emphasize that diplomatic personnel and facilities must be respected and that the way to defend religion is through peace rather than violence. As people of faith, we have an obligation to prevent the people who did this video provoking a cycle of violence that violates the values that undergird our faith.'"The letter seems to have been sent via e-mail early on a Friday morning in Turkey, just in time for Friday prayers."In his letter, Obama also said: 'I understand you are traveling between Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is just after midnight in Washington. I am writing to you because given what has happened in the last two days, there is a very real danger that there could be an escalation of violence on Friday that would be very damaging to our shared interests.'"Obama then mentioned the video, saying: 'Let me be clear that the U.S. government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message, which entirely contradicts my personal views and the values that America stands for.' Obama then underscored that the U.S. respects Islam and that it is opposed to efforts that offend Muslims by defaming the Prophet Muhammad."He added that they could do nothing to block the video, saying that this was not possible 'in this age of technology,' and noted that they are bound by the commitment to free expression. 'Nevertheless, our embassies across the Middle East are at risk and we are deeply concerned that after Friday prayers our people and installations in the region could be vulnerable to attack. We must not let extremists use this video as a pretext to attack America, or our other allies and partners,' Obama wrote."Obama ended his letter by thanking Erdoğan and calling him 'my friend,' adding that he looks forward to 'talking again' in a few days' time – when Erdoğan would return to Turkey from abroad."
Photo: Today's Zaman, February 9, 2015SEA In Hurriyet Interview: "Emails We Exposed Prove Coordination Between Turkish Government And Armed Groups In Syria"The Turkish dailies Hurriyet and Hurriyet Daily News reported on February 11, 2015 that Hurriyet had conducted an interview via email with SEA's spokesman, who said that the group had hacked the emails two years previously but that it had chosen to hold on to them "to ensure that the Turkish government doesn't attempt to whitewash its involvement inside Syria."[4] He added that the SEA had targeted Turkey's communications in 2009, after Turkey had shot down a Syrian helicopter.According to the report, the SEA spokesman who answered Hurriyet's questions said: "The email communications that we exposed prove the fact that the Turkish government is in coordination with the armed groups fighting in Syria." He added, "The whole world disrespected Syria's borders; in return we too will disregard all the borders of the world and will target those who want to harm our country, no matter where they may be."Hurriyet Daily News wrote: "[The spokesman said] 'We act independently and have a very large support base of members on social media... We are currently hosted on foreign servers. No one has lent their support to us but it is OK, because it doesn't take much – just a laptop, an Internet connection, knowledge and time,' the SEA spokesperson said."'We targeted most Turkish regime websites, like the Foreign Ministry, the presidency, the military industry, and many others. All the emails and the messages of the targeted websites were dumped and downloaded, and we will leak them soon.'"The spokesman for the group, which hacked Saudi, Qatari, and Arab League emails in addition to accounts in Turkey, said that Riyadh, Doha, Ankara and the Arab League were involved in the Syrian war."The report said that SEA had expressed hope that the world could hold these accountable for the weapons smuggled into Syria, including mortars which are being used by terrorists to target civilian areas. 'All their involvement is now proven thanks to these leaks,' he said."The group has in the recent past also hacked the Twitter account of U.S. President Barack Obama, the Facebook account of former French president Nicolas Sarkozy, and the websites and Twitter accounts of The Guardian, BBC, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press, CNN, and Al-Jazeera in the recent past."Photo: Zaman, February 9, 2015Endnotes:[1] Hurriyet, February 10, 2015.[2] Zaman, Today’s Zaman, February 9, 2015.[3] Today’s Zaman, February 9, 2015.[4] Hurriyet, Hurriyet Daily News, February 11, 2015.
____________________
In the following lines within the Obama letter to Erdogan, the worst kept secret in the history of the presidency is revealed: Barack Hussein Obama is, indeed, a Muslim.
"Obama asked Erdoğan to 'speak out immediately and forcefully before people go to Friday prayers': 'I believe that you are one of the most credible voices in the Islamic world today, and that if people hear you calling for calm and condemning violence it will have a real impact,' stated Obama in his letter to Erdoğan, adding: 'It will be important to emphasize that diplomatic personnel and facilities must be respected and that the way to defend religion is through peace rather than violence. As people of faith, we have an obligation to prevent the people who did this video provoking a cycle of violence that violates the values that undergird our faith.'
Like with the speech he delivered where he insulted Christians by comparing the religion to the violence of ISIS, Obama evoked the words "our faith". He never stated "faiths" because he intended this to be a collectivized phrasing; the connotation is unmistakable. But who does he intend to declare as responsible but those who in Egypt leaked some random video that insults the Islamic faith?
God forbid should the "intolerant" Christian peoples of the world all pull a "Charlie Hebdo" and lead to a slew of attacks on media centers!
The matter Obama asked that Erdogan do this prior to the Friday prayers are also unmistakable as Muslims some five times daily are required within the Qur'an to pray in the direction of Mecca. But of course, there is more, and as a result, I will continue.
Obama continually emphasized the importance of not permitting the video he claimed was the cause of the Benghazi attack to lead to further escalations of violence by extremists. Just who, though, are these extremists, and why did he care since he funded them in Syria? For that, read the latter paragraphs ag)ain:
"In his letter, Obama also said: 'I understand you are traveling between Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and it is just after midnight in Washington. I am writing to you because given what has happened in the last two days, there is a very real danger that there could be an escalation of violence on Friday that would be very damaging to our shared interests.'
"Obama then mentioned the video, saying: 'Let me be clear that the U.S. government had nothing to do with it. We reject its message, which entirely contradicts my personal views and the values that America stands for.' Obama then underscored that the U.S. respects Islam and that it is opposed to efforts that offend Muslims by defaming the Prophet Muhammad.
"He added that they could do nothing to block the video, saying that this was not possible 'in this age of technology,' and noted that they are bound by the commitment to free expression. 'Nevertheless, our embassies across the Middle East are at risk and we are deeply concerned that after Friday prayers our people and installations in the region could be vulnerable to attack. We must not let extremists use this video as a pretext to attack America, or our other allies and partners,' Obama wrote.
"Obama ended his letter by thanking Erdoğan and calling him 'my friend,' adding that he looks forward to 'talking again' in a few days' time – when Erdoğan would return to Turkey from abroad."
__________________
Here we see Obama reference two keep issues. One is that our government had nothing to do with leaking the video, nor could he legally stop its diffusion; I concur with the president there, because even he would not be so sophomoric as to send out something under any false pretense.
Next is the issue of "our embassies across the Middle East are at risk and we are deeply concerned that after Friday prayers our people and installations in the region could be vulnerable to attack. We must not let extremists use this video as a pretext to attack America, or our other allies and partners." But who are these "extremists" Obama is mentioning since he refuses to classify ISIS as such in his press conferences? Why are our airstrikes being conducted following the White House calling the ISIS leadership to reveal its plans? Lastly, who are America's allies and partners? This could certainly not include Israel because he purchased land from the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohamed Morsi to the tune of 40% of the Sinai Peninsula according to Egyptian documentation claiming the president bribed that government. That real estate deal cost taxpayers some $8 billion and included a "holocaust" plan that included the destruction of Israel.
What does Obama, like the rest of the Islamic faith, consider to "peace"? For instance, Napoleon Bonaparte conquered all of continental Europe under the pretense of advancing the initiatives of the French Revolution of liberty, fraternity and equality. Any scholar on global and historical political systems will understand that communism reflects what is stated in the classic Orwell novel Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949):
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
And of course, our media ensures that as many Americans as possible remain keenly aware of each.
___________________
Part II: The Erdogan Connection to Syria, Qatar and Saudi Arabia
In understand foreign policy, one must grasp that all geopolitical events have a ripple effect as if a child were to skip a stone across a pond. What affects one region will assuredly do the same for the rest. In the case of Syria, it has proven to be about the quest for dominance over the Arab world as a result, the Middle East and the access to its rich oil reserves. The civil war in Syria profound affects this dynamic; it is why today, the price of oil globally is the lowest in about seven years even as costs for refining as well as drilling tool and dye are higher and most nations in the West have implemented strict gas mileage regulations. Syria by comparison to other Arab League states has very little to offer regarding oil, but it does serve as a satellite state sphere of influence for Iran to engage in a potential standoff with rival Sunni states, as well of course as Lebanon. All Islamic states, most of whom are governed under Sharia law, have the inherent desire to destroy Israel and reoccupy Jerusalem. The race now is not only whether anyone wishes to eradicate Islamic extremism from the grossly destabilized region, but rather who should come to serve as the lesser of two evils and still benefit the West regarding a central authority with whom to conduct business.
Just who does Obama support? Well, that is very difficult to explain. Our government did create ISIS, and it was achieved at some point between 2012 and April 2013... or so the public believes.
SEA chronicled in an interview with the Turkish media source Hurriyet Daily News. The report is most damning in its indictment on Middle East affairs in that Erdogan coordinated funding for training militant operations between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Recall last summer that during the war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip how UN Gen. Secretary Ban Ki-moon was provided as a courtesy a flight from Kuwait aboard the al-Thani monarchy's jet liner to Cairo for peace talks. The al-Thani family rules Qatar, which is considered among the world's most affluent state sponsors for terrorism. Also of note was how former Obama Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel flew personally to Qatar to pay the al-Thani regime some $11 billion to bolster its military forces. Qatar is also the nation that served as the conduit for the swap of the Taliban Five for the derelict Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl. Just as ISIS and Al-Qaeda are off shoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, so too is Hamas as well as Boko Haram. As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu continues to stand alone in fighting for his country and the Holy Land's survive, a globalist agenda is a foot to destroy Israel and manifest a caliphate encompassing all the Middle East.
The following is crucial to grasp:
SEA In Hurriyet Interview: "Emails We Exposed Prove Coordination Between Turkish Government And Armed Groups In Syria"
The Turkish dailies Hurriyet and Hurriyet Daily News reported on February 11, 2015 that Hurriyet had conducted an interview via email with SEA's spokesman, who said that the group had hacked the emails two years previously but that it had chosen to hold on to them "to ensure that the Turkish government doesn't attempt to whitewash its involvement inside Syria."[4] He added that the SEA had targeted Turkey's communications in 2009, after Turkey had shot down a Syrian helicopter.
According to the report, the SEA spokesman who answered Hurriyet's questions said: "The email communications that we exposed prove the fact that the Turkish government is in coordination with the armed groups fighting in Syria." He added, "The whole world disrespected Syria's borders; in return we too will disregard all the borders of the world and will target those who want to harm our country, no matter where they may be."
Hurriyet Daily News wrote: "[The spokesman said] 'We act independently and have a very large support base of members on social media... We are currently hosted on foreign servers. No one has lent their support to us but it is OK, because it doesn't take much – just a laptop, an Internet connection, knowledge and time,' the SEA spokesperson said.
The Egyptian media was indeed correct, that the Turkish government under Erdogan was very heavily involved with the Muslim Brotherhood; why else would Erdogan so quickly grant them asylum following their expulsion from Qatar? As Erdogan is a noted "friend" of President Obama, it bears mentioning that he visited the U.S. on May 16, 2013; on July 3 that year, Gen. Abdel Fattah el-Sisi led a coup d'etat that toppled the Muslim Brotherhood government under Mohamed Morsi.
Why is it imperative to comprehend where Erdogan is involved in Egypt? Erdogan was a major ally of the Morsi regime under the Muslim Brotherhood. In referencing the Middle East medium Al Monitor, we will see how the present relationship with the el-Sisi government is altogether different:
Turkish-Egyptian ties are at a standstill
Prospects for a rapprochement between Ankara and Cairo, whose ties hit rock-bottom following Mohammed Morsi's ouster by the Egyptian military in 2013, appear bleaker than ever after Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan used some of the harshest language to date against Egypt in his UN General Assembly address on Sept. 24.
According to Middle East experts in Ankara contacted by Al-Monitor, Erdogan’s remarks, which elicited a sharp rejoinder from Egypt, show that Turkey will remain a staunch backer of Morsi and a keen supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across the Middle East.
This, however, flies in the face of many regional countries that are opponents of the Brotherhood, and raises questions about whether Ankara can play any significant role in the Middle East while remaining at loggerheads with a principal Arab power that the West and many Arab countries are cooperating closely with.
Referring to the “slaughter of democracy” in Egypt in his speech to the UN General Assembly, Erdogan accused the United Nations and the democratic countries of the West of “simply looking on” as the popularly elected president of Egypt was toppled in a military coup, and as thousands who wanted this to be accounted for were massacred.Egypt’s response to Erdogan was quick in coming and also showed that tensions between the two countries were unlikely to abate anytime soon. "There is no doubt that the fabrication of such lies and fabrications is not something strange that comes from the Turkish president, who is keen to provoke chaos to sow divisions in the Middle East region through support for groups and terrorist organizations," a statement from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said.
Providing insight into how Erdogan’s remarks were received in the region, the United Arab Emirates Foreign Ministry also denounced Erdogan, accusing him of “irresponsible and blatant interference in the internal affairs” of Egypt.
Erdogan has consistently criticized the Egyptian military and its backers in most of his public speeches since its coup against Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Meanwhile, Erdogan’s grassroots Islamist supporters continue to admire Morsi and bear an ideological affinity with the Brotherhood, which has been labeled a “terrorist organization” in Egypt.
Having pursued policies that clipped the political wings of the Turkish military, to guard his Islamist government against the possibility of being ousted in a coup similar to those that took place in Turkey in past decades, Erdogan clearly feels politically duty-bound to oppose any military-led ouster of elected governments, and particularly Islamist ones, in the region.
Nebahat Tanriverdi, a senior researcher with the Ankara-based Center for Middle Eastern Strategic Studies (ORSAM), also stressed this point when answering questions for Al-Monitor.
“Opposing military coups has become a centerpiece of Ankara’s foreign policy following the Egyptian coup in 2013. There are no signs that this value-based doctrine, which has replaced Turkey’s previous doctrine of maintaining good ties with regional countries, will change soon,” Tanriverdi said. She added that this also indicates there will be no early change in the current state of Turkish-Egyptian relations.
Umit Ozdag, the director of the 21st Century Turkey Institute, another Ankara-based think tank, struck a more alarming note when explaining the motivation behind Erdogan’s attack on Egypt at the UN.
“There is an ideological motivation behind his words that shows Turkey will become the center for the Egyptian opposition, and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, in the coming period,” Ozdag, a political science professor and former deputy from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), told Al-Monitor.
He said this was not just any public speech by Erdogan but one that was carefully prepared with the assistance of his foreign policy advisers with a view to sending a clear message to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists in the Middle East.
Asked if this would not damage Turkey’s chances of playing an influential role in the region by putting it at odds with the region’s principal powers, Ozdag said the answer to this depends on one’s point of view.
“Looked at rationally, it's obvious that Turkey is isolated in the region. But the architects of Turkey’s current policies refer to this as ‘precious isolation’ and believe supporting Salafists and the Brotherhood is the correct thing to do,” he said. Ozdag went on to assert that Ankara’s support for these groups would do “extraordinary damage to Turkey the way Salafists in Afghanistan did to Pakistan.”
Retired Ambassador Osman Koruturk, who served as special envoy for Iraq in 2003-05, and whose previous postings as ambassador included Tehran, also believes that Erdogan’s fury against Egypt is ideologically motivated, rather than reflecting a genuine concern for democracy. He pointed out that Erdogan’s own democratic credentials in Turkey were far from perfect.
Koruturk, a deputy from the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), maintained that Erdogan dreamed of a political system in the Middle East that was based on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist outlook. “The anger in his UN speech is essentially against those countries that are supporting [President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's] government in Egypt and preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from ascending to power,” Koruturk said.
Retired diplomat Ali Tuygan, whose ambassadorial posts included Riyad (1995-97) and who served as undersecretary for the Foreign Ministry in 2004-06, for his part, questioned how Turkey expected to be elected to the UN Security Council — which it is lobbying for — with Erdogan venting his anger at Egypt in this way.
Tuygan also told Al-Monitor that it was not possible for Turkey to play an important role in the Middle East without Egypt’s support. “Even [Palestinian President] Mahmoud Abbas made this point during his visit to Ankara in July, when he openly emphasized Egypt’s regional importance during a panel discussion,” Tuygan said.
Despite his critics, Erdogan’s continuing anger at the Egyptian government and his support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and its affiliates like Hamas, continue to command great respect and admiration among Turkey’s conservative Islamic masses.
Arguing that Turkey’s foreign policy was “neither dictating nor condescending,” Seral Koprulu, an analyst for the pro-government daily Yeni Safak, wrote in a current column that hatred and violence was increasing by the day in the Middle East.
“The solution is for all Muslims to act with a sense of solidarity and to unite,” she said in her commentary in which she lauded Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu’s, and hence Erdogan’s, foreign policy that she indicated was aimed at trying to secure this.
This, then, is how Erdogan’s supporters see the Middle East. Erdogan’s morality-based approach to the region is also one of the reasons behind the strong support he secured in the Aug. 10 presidential elections, when he was elected with 52% of the vote.
The ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) that he headed until he became president was preparing for the June 2015 general elections, only nine months away. It is aiming for a strong victory in those elections, based on policies that have brought it one electoral victory after another since first coming to power in 2002.
This also makes it unlikely in the coming period that Erdogan will change tack on Egypt, or any of his diplomat hobbyhorses relating to the region, and ensures that Turkish-Egyptian ties will remain in the doldrums for the foreseeable future.
For a leader of a strategic NATO member as is Erdogan (Turkey was admitted into NATO in 1952), he stands for everything the rest of the European base does not. He has become not merely a liability, but a potential source as a base to launch a full-scale invasion for both ISIS and his own military should he decide the political winds which Obama described are ripe to pick off a continent of appeasers.
Erdogan again stated several very troubling details that were quoted within the Al Monitor article. I first will direct your attention to the following on his support for Mohamed Morsi:
Erdogan again stated several very troubling details that were quoted within the Al Monitor article. I first will direct your attention to the following on his support for Mohamed Morsi:
According to Middle East experts in Ankara contacted by Al-Monitor, Erdogan’s remarks, which elicited a sharp rejoinder from Egypt, show that Turkey will remain a staunch backer of Morsi and a keen supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and across the Middle East.This, however, flies in the face of many regional countries that are opponents of the Brotherhood, and raises questions about whether Ankara can play any significant role in the Middle East while remaining at loggerheads with a principal Arab power that the West and many Arab countries are cooperating closely with.
The question is a moot point. There is no sign of any precipitous change in Turkey as the Erdogan regime has brutally cracked down on his civilian population. Furthermore, he has provided direct aid to ISIS alongside again their consulate in Ankara, and is also still granting asylum to the Muslim Brotherhood as he is a staunch ally and in my opinion, an actual shadow member in authority.
Furthermore, Erdogan is described in his level of support through the diplomatic deterioration amid international consternation, as his speech before the United Nations was on the topic just covered:
Referring to the “slaughter of democracy” in Egypt in his speech to the UN General Assembly, Erdogan accused the United Nations and the democratic countries of the West of “simply looking on” as the popularly elected president of Egypt was toppled in a military coup, and as thousands who wanted this to be accounted for were massacred.Erdogan ignored intentionally that Hosni Mubarak was toppled in a coup d'etat too. The response from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry was swift, direct and minced no words:
Like watching Peyton Place, all Middle East nations know each other almost too intimately well. In fact, the el-Sisi government in Egypt has already declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization alongside several other Arab League states, and has charged President Obama and both Bill and Hillary Clinton with conspiring with the Morsi regime and in attempting to topple the present government.Egypt’s response to Erdogan was quick in coming and also showed that tensions between the two countries were unlikely to abate anytime soon. "There is no doubt that the fabrication of such lies and fabrications is not something strange that comes from the Turkish president, who is keen to provoke chaos to sow divisions in the Middle East region through support for groups and terrorist organizations," a statement from the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said.
Middle East foreign policy scholar Umit Ozdag expanded further, describing the direction of the Republic of Turkey from a contemporary foreign policy doctrine:
The Salafist movement is what we know to be that of ISIS, al-Qaeda and Boko Haram today. It is the purest form of Islam as each cell is engaging in what the Qur'an directly commands that all Muslims should reflect the life of Muhammad as he was the most virtuous of all me in history. It therefore is to be understood that Turkey is a state sponsor of terrorism that the West refuses to acknowledge as it has served for more than 60 years as a crucial ally bridging Europe and the Middle East access to Asia at the Bosporus Strait.Umit Ozdag, the director of the 21st Century Turkey Institute, another Ankara-based think tank, struck a more alarming note when explaining the motivation behind Erdogan’s attack on Egypt at the UN.“There is an ideological motivation behind his words that shows Turkey will become the center for the Egyptian opposition, and especially the Muslim Brotherhood, in the coming period,” Ozdag, a political science professor and former deputy from the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), told Al-Monitor.He said this was not just any public speech by Erdogan but one that was carefully prepared with the assistance of his foreign policy advisers with a view to sending a clear message to members of the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafists in the Middle East.
In declaring Turkey as politically-isolated in Asia Minor, Ozdag also described the contrary view of the government, one which should be heeded by competent leaders who wish to crush terrorism at its core and not expand it into a global caliphate:
“Looked at rationally, it's obvious that Turkey is isolated in the region. But the architects of Turkey’s current policies refer to this as ‘precious isolation’ and believe supporting Salafists and the Brotherhood is the correct thing to do,” he said. Ozdag went on to assert that Ankara’s support for these groups would do “extraordinary damage to Turkey the way Salafists in Afghanistan did to Pakistan.”
Retired Ambassador Osman Koruturk, who served as special envoy for Iraq in 2003-05, and whose previous postings as ambassador included Tehran, also believes that Erdogan’s fury against Egypt is ideologically motivated, rather than reflecting a genuine concern for democracy. He pointed out that Erdogan’s own democratic credentials in Turkey were far from perfect.
Koruturk, a deputy from the main opposition Republican People's Party (CHP), maintained that Erdogan dreamed of a political system in the Middle East that was based on the Muslim Brotherhood’s Islamist outlook. “The anger in his UN speech is essentially against those countries that are supporting [President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi's] government in Egypt and preventing the Muslim Brotherhood from ascending to power,” Koruturk said.As I read Walid Shoebat once claim, Recep Tayyip Erdogan is not only intent on reinstalling the Muslim Brotherhood as the regional base for political dominance in the Middle East, but in a caliphate akin to the last one based in Constantinople (Istanbul) in present-day Turkey known as the Ottoman Empire. In a sense, Erdogan wants to be the new caliph himself, and it should be questioned as to whether al-Baghdadi is actually the power behind the ISIS jihad for a new caliphate.
The Qatari connection from Doha should not come as a surprise given their serving as a public supporter for Hamas. Saudi Arabia, long a key ally in the Middle East, was recently described by convicted al-Qaeda operative Zacharia Moussaori as behind the plot for financing the September 11, 2001 attacks. Fox News covered these details just days ago. Of note is the following that should be subject to vigorous inquiries:
Saudi Arabia has a new king — pro-American like the late monarch — and the two wary allies are working closely to confront the Islamic State, the turmoil in Yemen and Iran's nuclear aspirations. At the same time, U.S. officials say they continue to privately admonish Saudi Arabia over human rights abuses in the kingdom, such as the recent flogging of a blogger, and its support of the spread of religious extremism abroad.
Moussaoui, who claimed during his terror conspiracy court case that he had planned to fly a plane into the White House on Sept. 11, was deposed by lawyers in a civil suit by some Sept. 11 families who are seeking damages from the Saudi government and other defendants, including charities and banks. Saudi Arabia vigorously disputes the allegations.
Moussaoui testified at his trial that key members of the Saudi royal family continued to fund al-Qaida in the late 1990s, even after the organization had declared war on the House of Saud. He also described plotting with an employee of the Saudi Embassy in Washington to shoot down Air Force One.
Lynch said the classified 28 pages, which are drawn from intelligence collection and FBI investigations, "are consistent" with Moussaoui's testimony.
"There are specifics, there are transactions, there are names," Lynch said.Reps. Stephen Lynch (D-MA) and Walter Jones (R-NC) are co-sponsoring a resolution for the 28-page document comprised of Moussaoui's testimony to be declassified. Per Fox News, these 28-pages were omitted from the public report on the order of George W. Bush, who did permit the divulging of intelligence sources and methods. While the testimony of Moussaoui remains unsubstantiated, these documents, if confirmed, could open a Pandora's Box with respect to the Islamic world and a likely major shift in U.S. foreign policy for the Middle East.
Part III: The Delicate Turkish/Saudi Relationship - A "Cold War" Over Control of the Sunni States
Established for at least three years is the fundamental truth that the foundation behind the Sunni wars in Syria are as much a war for influence as the entente of the Shi'ite states (Iran, Syria, Lebanon and now the deposed government in Yemen) seek to first preserve and last, expand their own into a caliphate based on their design.
The war for empire is being fought within the interior circle more vigorously by the Sunni dialectic, as the rise of ISIS and its conflict with al-Qaeda's network of satellite cells continue to complicate how one might accurately represent the actual facts painting this darkening opaque picture. Another article from Al Monitor describes how this "cold war" for dominance of the Shi'ite world is being waged between Saudi Arabia and Erdogan's Turkish design of a contemporary Ottoman caliphate. This can be detailed below:
The Saudi-Turkey cold war for Sunni hegemony
The current “cold war” in the Middle East has taken two forms. It involves the Shiite-Sunni war being fought in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Gulf, as well as a parallel Sunni-Sunni conflict involving Turkey, Saudi Arabia and political Islamic forces to control and dominate the politics of Sunni Islam. Dominating the Sunni sphere requires controlling religious interpretation, especially that relating to political systems. In this regard, the model of Islamic democracy practiced in Turkey is considered a challenge to the political realm of Saudi religious theory.
While Justice and Development Party (AKP) government in Turkey believes that Islam and democracy are not mutually exclusive, and seeks to promote their compatibility among conservative Islamic movements in the Arab Middle East, Saudi Islamic rhetoric sees democracy as an encroachment on the fundamentals of religion. The rhetoric in the fatwas of Sheikh Saleh al-Fawzan, a member of the Council of Senior Scholars, is an example of this perspective.
Iran differs in that, as a result of the worsening situation in Iraq, it is now in complete control of the political Shiite sphere. This is a feat that none of its opponents can claim to have achieved, for neither Turkey nor Saudi Arabia nor an Islamist movement has been able to fully dominate the Sunni scene. In addition, given the differences among these actors' outlooks and their diverging assessments of the dangers at hand, agreement among the Sunni forces would appear difficult to achieve. Thus the most likely scenario seems to be conflict to resolve the issue of dominance of the Sunni sphere of influence, with Egypt and Syria serving as the primary battlefields.
Saudi Arabia’s designation of the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization is considered a manifestation of this intra-Sunni cold war, which, it seems, will not be short lived. Each party to the conflict will attempt to gain the hearts and minds of Sunni Muslims, drawing them to their own political agendas and religious authorities.
Recently adopted Saudi antiterror laws are in part an attempt to tighten control over the local Sunni community and narrow the room to maneuver for actors from other countries. Toward that end, Riyadh might also pressure regional Arab and Muslim organizations and bodies to adopt similar legislation in its quest to dominate the Sunni scene and weed out potential competitors, primarily the Muslim Brotherhood.
Victory in this war is a sensitive matter for Saudi Arabia, as a defeat of its political and religious projects by the democratic Islam or jihadist Islam models means undermining the basis of the Saudi regime among Muslims. Saudi Arabia's role as the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques makes it a necessity that its religious rhetoric emerge the victor in the battle of ideas in the Muslim world.
In the context of the Sunni-Sunni cold war, Saudi Arabia and its allies base their agenda on the idea of restoring stability and development and promises of abundant funding made possible by oil riches. Meanwhile, the agenda of Turkey and its allies is predicated on combining democracy with development, while the jihadist factions' philosophy rejects the world order entirely.
Turkey's AKP government is considered the main sponsor and supporter of political Islamic movements in the region. Riyadh resents this, as it sees Islamist movements as a threat to regional stability. Even though Qatar backs Turkey in its support of Islamist movements, Qatar's actions do not bother the Saudis as much as Turkey's. In fact, the political stance of Qatar toward democracy is no different than that of Saudi Arabia. Democracy, Ottoman heritage and a powerful economic and political position all contribute to making Turkey, rather than Qatar, Saudi Arabia's main competitor in the Sunni political world.
The current Saudi-Turkish conflict is reminiscent of past relations between the Saudi kingdom and the Ottoman Empire. The conflict today, however, is not between Wahhabism and Sufism, but between Islamic Wahhabism and Islamic democracy. The conflict between these two camps reaches into all the countries of the Arab Spring, but it is particularly apparent in Egypt and Syria.
While Saudi Arabia issued a decision banning such symbols as the four-finger Rabia al-Adawiya sign, used to signal support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the Turkish prime minister has been seen making this sign at public events. The Turkish ambassador to Jordan, Sedat Onal, annoyed Gulf states when he expressed his confusion about the Saudi decision to designate the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization, according to the Jordanian daily Al-Arab al-Yawm.
Political Islamic movements in the Arab world such as the Muslim Brotherhood are now allies of Turkey, whereas in the past they had been associated with Saudi Arabia. For decades, the Muslim Brotherhood was a soft-power tool exploited by Saudi foreign policy in its cold war with the pan-Arab nationalist and Nasserite movements. The Muslim Brotherhood’s stance vis-à-vis the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, however, sowed the seeds of mistrust between the two parties. The seeds grew when the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Sahwa (Awakening) movement ratcheted up its criticism of the Saudi government during the 1990s.
As the Arab Spring came to pass, with the Brotherhood ascending to power with Turkey’s support, whatever remained of the trust between the Brotherhood and the Saudis disappeared, sparking a cold war that may not end anytime soon, but with the Turkey of Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the forefront for now.
_____________________
The historian within relishes the fact how one can read the annuls of any non-revised history text to grasp that nothing is new beneath the sun. Here it is clear: Saudi Arabia has always stood for the most puritanical form of Islam called "Salafism". When King Abdullah died roughly two weeks ago, the far left-leaning MSNBC reported that he "despised" President Obama. Aside from Obama's vain narcissism and exaggerated self-worth to the point of hyperbole, his relationship with Erdogan indeed serves the observer a red flag as to why.
As Obama is evidently a Muslim, he support a theocratic democracy, which within the comments of a key Muslim Brotherhood member in authority can be clearly defined in the following transliterated language:
We believe that the political reform is the true and natural gateway for all other kinds of reform. We have announced our acceptance of democracy that acknowledges political pluralism, the peaceful rotation of power and the fact that the nation is the source of all powers. As we see it, political reform includes the termination of the state of emergency, restoring public freedoms, including the right to establish political parties, whatever their tendencies may be, and the freedom of the press, freedom of criticism and thought, freedom of peaceful demonstrations, freedom of assembly, etc. It also includes the dismantling of all exceptional courts and the annulment of all exceptional laws, establishing the independence of the judiciary, enabling the judiciary to fully and truly supervise general elections so as to ensure that they authentically express people's will, removing all obstacles that restrict the functioning of civil society organizations, etc.
Beyond the peripheries of the objective-subjective paradigm, such obstacles that are removed restricting the functioning of a civil society could mean many things. What convolutes the narrative are the notorious contradictory slogans:
"Islam is the Solution"
"God is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of God is our highest hope. God is great!"And apparently, so is Allah for the United States of America - at least according to the ranking member stateside in President Obama.
As the Muslim Brotherhood is emblematic of a "nuanced" form of Sunni Islamic doctrine modified for the modern age, the Saud family having ruled as caretakers of the two holiest shrines in Islam take exception. The family considers Saudi Arabia its ultimate tribute to the legacy of Muhammad by ensuring Mecca and Medina remain well-kept and manicured and lastly, that the way of the prophet should remain steeped in his exact footsteps through the pervasion of the Arab sphere's culture. That begs to question just why the dynamics of the conflict so suddenly changed since the Muslim Brotherhood, the "posh" form of Sunni Islam, are not only being provided asylum by Erdogan following their leadership's expulsion from Qatar's capital of Doha, while the ISIS Salafist fringe now is being provided with consulates in the Turkish capital, Ankara.
The answer now is growing more translucent through the convolution of the opaqueness that clouded the Arab Spring in steep mystery. Erdogan counted on the Muslim Brotherhood to be his best chance to expand his design for an Ottoman-form of a caliphate. The key is the link between the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS itself. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, ladies and gentlemen, is a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood.
________________
Part IV: The Leader of ISIS (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi) is a Former Member of the Muslim Brotherhood
Precious little is known about the life of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but what we do know is he was indeed born in Iraq and served in the nation's branch under al-Qaeda, declared a terrorist cell during the second year of the Iraq occupation by U.S. and British forces on December 17, 2004. The State Department states this to be a fact that is irrefutable, that akin to the left-wing media and the Democrats opposing the campaign to rid the nation of Saddam Hussein's cache of weapons of mass destruction (which were in fact located as reported in October), the reason why this aversion is fact is because now it implicates that Bill Clinton's claim from the CIA was correct, that the Democrats attempted to dissuade public knowledge of an intelligence detail the media attempted to sweep beneath the rug at all costs, like as a measure of vengeance against what the party continues to assert was an illegitimate Bush presidency. Al-Qaeda had been in Iraq all that time; al-Baghdadi was born and raised in Iraq and at some point emigrated to Afghanistan, where it is reported he resided likely near the mountains of Tora Bora under the U.S. and British allied forces invaded and toppled the Taliban regime.
Furthermore, Al Monitor posted a piece describing what is known about al-Baghdadi, from his birth and parentage to his time as a theological scholar in Iraq and finally, his immersion into Salafism through al-Qaeda and finally his ascent to power through the tactic of taqiyya as the self-proclaimed caliph of the new Islamic State:
Who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi?
Afghan sources have provided new information on the elusive leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also now known as Caliph Ibrahim. According to these accounts, Baghdadi spent several years in Afghanistan working with the Arab jihadist community and the Taliban. Baghdadi apparently went to Afghanistan in the late 1990s with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who founded al-Qaeda in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003. It was Zarqawi's group that would later evolve into the Islamic State.
Afghan sources have provided new information on the elusive leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also now known as Caliph Ibrahim. According to these accounts, Baghdadi spent several years in Afghanistan working with the Arab jihadist community and the Taliban. Baghdadi apparently went to Afghanistan in the late 1990s with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who founded al-Qaeda in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003. It was Zarqawi's group that would later evolve into the Islamic State.
Zarqawi, whose real name was Ahmad Fadil al- Khalayilah, had been a petty criminal known for his cruelty. Born in 1966, he spent several years in Jordanian prisons, where he was radicalized in the 1980s, becoming an Islamic extremist. Once freed, between 1989 and 1992 he fought with the Afghan mujahedeen against the Soviet-backed communist regime in Kabul before returning to Jordan.
The Jordanians again arrested Zarqawi, in 1994, for plotting against King Hussein's peace treaty with Israel. His trial for anti-Hashemite, subversive activities made him famous. After five years in prison, Zarqawi was released in a general amnesty when Hussein died and was succeeded by his son, King Abdullah II, in February 1999.
Zarqawi went back to Afghanistan, which is when he and Baghdadi reportedly began to live and work together. Afghan sources recall that they were close partners. Zarqawi established an Arab group called Jund al-Sham (Army of Syria) and received considerable assistance from Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. The group operated in Kabul and Herat.
Zarqawi's group planned a major terror attack, targeting big hotels and biblical tourist sites in Jordan on the eve of the millennium. The Jordanian intelligence service uncovered the plot in December 1999, and Zarqawi was indicted in absentia for masterminding it. What role Baghdadi played in the plot is unknown, but it seems likely that he was involved.
Baghdadi had close relations with the Taliban during his years in Afghanistan, as did Zarqawi. The two Arabs shared the Taliban's sectarian hatred of Iranians and Shiites. Baghdadi was especially close to the Taliban minister of education, an ironic portfolio since the Taliban banned most forms of education, especially for women and girls.
It is likely that Baghdadi, like the rest of the Taliban's allies, fled Afghanistan after the American intervention following 9/11. Zarqawi went to Iraq and began building the infrastructure that would become al-Qaeda in Iraq and, after his death in 2006, the Islamic State of Iraq.
The new information helps put Baghdadi (a nom de guerre) in better perspective. His association with Zarqawi from at least 1999 establishes him as an early player in the Sunni extremist movement in Iraq and its war against Shiism. He was present at the creation.
It also helps explain his strained relationship with Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's successor in al-Qaeda. Zawahri was always skeptical of Zarqawi and his associates, whom he regarded as too sectarian and bloodthirsty. Zawahri counseled bin Laden not to trust Zarqawi.
Zawahri expelled Baghdadi from al-Qaeda earlier this year over a turf battle. Zawahri had wanted Jabhat al-Nusra to be al-Qaeda's franchise in Syria, while Baghdadi had wanted what was then the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) to be in charge. ISIS had actually created Jabhat al-Nusra, and Baghdadi wanted a bigger role. Having claimed to be caliph, he aspires to command all of Islam through what is now called the Islamic State.
Meanwhile, Mullah Omar, leader of the Afghan Taliban, asserts he is the true commander of the faithful. His claim goes back to the 1990s and was vouched for by bin Laden. Baghdadi probably believes he has now surpassed all his rivals. Baghdadi's decision to proclaim himself caliph directly challenges Omar's standing. Omar is extremely taciturn and keeps hidden in his Pakistani sanctuary near Quetta. He may well simply choose to ignore his rival's pretensions while hailing the successes of the jihad in the Middle East.
________________________
There is one incorrect detail with regards to chronology. The Soviet Union evacuated its last armored vehicles and Red Army forces on November 15, 1989 having already negotiated truces with the copious mujahideen militants who fought Soviet forces through 1988. The inauguration of Ronald Reagan's successor and former vice president George H.W. Bush happened on January 12, 1989. Therein lies why Afghanistan fell to the Salafist forces which would become known as the Taliban under the financing and provisions provided by the ISI (Inter-State Intelligence) in Pakistan. The link to Zarqawi is the key to his drive towards the eventual establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq and later, its merger and final consolidation of the present Islamic State organization.
At best, the details available to the public are sketchy, bordering on duplicity as if an annoying game of Spy v. Spy. So say the intelligence which George W. Bush was led to believe were correctly, then were found to have been terribly flawed, only to be vindicated again in June 2014 when an Iraqi official informed UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon that caches of weapons of mass destruction were located and confiscated by "terrorists" in Iraq. We now know these terrorists to be ISIS. Most disturbing however is why they were never confiscated between the first procurements in 2004 and when President Obama ordered the removal of all American military presences in Iraq.
And therein lies your answer, because Joe Biden was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Ctte. between 2003-05 and again from 07 through his rise to the vice presidency in 2009. Obama also served on his committee and as a result, enjoyed the advantages such details pertinent to the knowledge of President Bush would not only have garnered, but provide with respect to America's national security interests and avoiding the destabilization of the region with respect to Jordan and others. In September 2014, The New York Times revealed what had long been known at the federal level except for its most important figure - Bush himself - that weapons of mass destruction had been located sporadically since 2004, with the last caches being unearthed as late as 2011, the year Obama removed the military from the country.
I choose to provide the details to this through IJ Review because it not only provides information directly from the NYT, it provides a better picture as to why Bush never knew about these weapons and who was responsible for what may well one of the deadliest cover-ups in the contemporary era of world history:
At best, the details available to the public are sketchy, bordering on duplicity as if an annoying game of Spy v. Spy. So say the intelligence which George W. Bush was led to believe were correctly, then were found to have been terribly flawed, only to be vindicated again in June 2014 when an Iraqi official informed UN Sec. Gen. Ban Ki-moon that caches of weapons of mass destruction were located and confiscated by "terrorists" in Iraq. We now know these terrorists to be ISIS. Most disturbing however is why they were never confiscated between the first procurements in 2004 and when President Obama ordered the removal of all American military presences in Iraq.
And therein lies your answer, because Joe Biden was the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Ctte. between 2003-05 and again from 07 through his rise to the vice presidency in 2009. Obama also served on his committee and as a result, enjoyed the advantages such details pertinent to the knowledge of President Bush would not only have garnered, but provide with respect to America's national security interests and avoiding the destabilization of the region with respect to Jordan and others. In September 2014, The New York Times revealed what had long been known at the federal level except for its most important figure - Bush himself - that weapons of mass destruction had been located sporadically since 2004, with the last caches being unearthed as late as 2011, the year Obama removed the military from the country.
I choose to provide the details to this through IJ Review because it not only provides information directly from the NYT, it provides a better picture as to why Bush never knew about these weapons and who was responsible for what may well one of the deadliest cover-ups in the contemporary era of world history:
 |
US Army soldiers from 2-8 Infantry, 2nd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division wearing their full chemical protection suits at a possible site for weapons of mass destruction in the central Iraqi town of Baquba, 01 May 2003. (Photo credit: AFP/Getty)
|
Chemical weapons were found during the Iraq War but the public never knew about it. Until now: http://t.co/tTDLmHqjps http://t.co/HkigTxIgGb
— New York Times Video (@nytvideo) October 15, 2014The news report from the Times explains the now not-secret revelation that there had been WMDs in Iraq, after all:
From 2004 to 2011, American and American-trained Iraqi troops repeatedly encountered, and on at least six occasions were wounded by, chemical weapons remaining from years earlier in Saddam Hussein’s rule.In all, American troops secretly reported finding roughly 5,000 chemical warheads, shells or aviation bombs, according to interviews with dozens of participants, Iraqi and American officials, and heavilyredacted intelligence documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
The NY Times even published a map of all the cases when American military troops were exposed to the formerly ‘non-existent’ weapons of mass destruction:
As The Blaze‘s Oliver Darcy pointed out, the WMD discoveries were kept partly hidden from Congress.
Retired Army major Jarrod Lampier, who was there when the U.S. military found 2,400 nerve agent rockets in 2006 — the largest chemical weapons discovery of the war – said of the finding’s import, “‘Nothing of significance’ is what I was ordered to say.”I choose to refrain from wasting precious time posting each tweet somehow condemning the war in Iraq even as it achieved its objective, which now has been compromised.
In continuing the report, more information was divulged:
Regardless of how one feels about George W. Bush or the Iraq War, this report definitely looks like ‘something of significance’ to those who were told there were no WMDs in Iraq – not to mention the soldiers who were injured by them.Justen Charters assisted with the creation of this report. This article was edited after publication.Update: In response to denials of the veracity of this report and its import, this is the actual text of the “AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002,” which passed the Congress:
Furthermore, the plot thickens, and how the federal government fooled us all into the false sense of outrage to destroy George W. Bush politically. They succeeded. And you will see how the media was complicit:
Hussein kept chemical weapons (wmds) from UN inspectors and these stockpiles were not only discovered, but reports of soldiers being injured by them were suppressed and were only discovered due to FOIA request.As a sample article of news publications that deny wmds even existed in Iraq, there is the 2005 news piece by NBC [recently removed – screenshot here], “CIA’s final report: No wmds found in Iraq.” CNN reported in 2004, “Report: No WMD stockpiles in Iraq.”This is what CNN concluded in 2004: “Saddam Hussein did not possess stockpiles of illicit weapons at the time of the U.S. invasion in March 2003 and had not begun any program to produce them, a CIA report concludes.”But various reports from 2009 and 2010 show reports of soldiers discovering new chemical weapons stockpiles. A 2010 Wired article, for example, reported, “…WikiLeaks’ newly-released Iraq war documents reveal that for years afterward, U.S. troops continued to find chemical weapons labs, encounter insurgent specialists in toxins and uncover weapons of mass destruction.”The headlines claiming that there were ‘no wmd stockpiles in Iraq’ are factually untrue (or are a “myth”) and are corrected by a report that chemical weapons stockpiles not known to UN inspectors were newly discovered post-invasion. The New York Times article adds to what we know through FOIA request documentation by establishing that not only were weapons stockpiles discovered, but U.S. soldiers were injured by them.The New York Times itself said it best: “Chemical weapons were found during the Iraq War but the public never knew about it. Until now.”
_______________________
What was not mentioned was how Iraqi government figures reported to the UN of ISIS uncovering Saddam Hussein's chemical weaponry stockpile in June and July last year that ISIS located not only a large cache of chemical weapons in Tikrit, but nuclear weaponry materials elsewhere.
Mark Levin, outraged as always at Obama as well as the establishment within the GOP, authored in American Thinker a scathing rebuke of Karl Rove's role as the individual who orchestrated with the Democrats in the Senate the cover up that toppled the legacy of George W. Bush:
So Karl Rove was involved in a cover-up. Well, leave it to Karl -- the “boy genius” and the “architect” -- to orchestrate a cover-up that actually hides information exculpatory to his President and his party. He did just that on the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. This is not an outlier either -- this is just Rove being Rove. And ‘Rove being Rove’ has sown the seeds of destruction that gave us Barack Obama in 2008, and again in 2012, and has scattered political germs that still haunt Republicans to this day. This goes back to late 2000 in fact. More on that later.
So in case you missed it, the New York Times ran an eight part expose on WMDs and The Daily Beast ran a well-sourced piece entitled Insiders Blame Rove for Covering Up Iraq’s Real WMDs that chronicles a Rove-inspired cover up. You might remember the little kerfuffle the nation got into when ostensibly no weapons were found? You know, “Bush lied, people died” and all of that? It helped run George W. Bush’s administration right into the ground, and he took the Republican brand with him. Yes, Hurricane Katrina was a major factor too, but again, that was related to ‘Rove being Rove’ as well -- and more on that later, too.
The WMD issue was one of the major public relations snafus of the Bush Administration, and the whole effort in the War on Terror. And the costs of these mistakes are catastrophic and still mounting. Those include, but are not limited to the 2006 midterms, the 2008 Presidential election, the 2012 Presidential election -- and oh, the development of a little outfit known as ISIS / ISIL / IS etc. The costs are incalculable. The electorate, over the course of the years of Bush being hammered about lying on the issue of WMDs, hardened toward Bush -- and by extension -- all Republicans and even all conservatives. We still have this hangover today! Ask a man named Romney.
So what is Rove’s part? He was the mastermind and chief proponent of the “new tone” White House communications strategy -- a strategy of never engaging the other side in a public debate. This unfortunately was the theory that carried the day in 2005-06 on WMDs as well. Consider this from The Daily Beast article:
From the perspective of Rick Santorum…the weapons of mass destruction President Bush promised would be in Iraq …began turning up as early as 2004. Santorum said he and his staff began receiving photographs of discarded sarin and mustard-gas shells from U.S. soldiers in 2004. Two years later, when he was up for re-election, Santorum even went public with some of this information in a press conference disclosing a Pentagon report that found 500 chemical-weapons shells had been found in Iraq.
So, in Santorum’s mind, exonerating Bush on the issue of WMDs would be a good thing to do, especially in a campaign season. Of course it would. But what did “the architect” say about this?
The Bush White House wasn’t interested. “We don’t want to look back,” Santorum recalled Rove as saying (though Santorum stressed he was paraphrasing). “I will say that the gist of the comments from the president’s senior people was ‘We don’t want to look back, we want to look forward.’”
Pete Hoekstra, who was Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence at the time, corroborated Santorum's story in an interview with AT Monday. "As we’re (Santorum and Hoekstra) trying to help the Administration, the harshest critics we have are from the Administration. There’s no doubt to me there’s a cover up -- the vast majority of the information we have now is stuff we were asking about in 2005 and 2006 and they never told us about it."
A senior advisor to Dick Cheney, Dave Wurmser, confirmed, saying “in 2005-6, Karl Rove and his team blocked public disclosure of these (findings) and said ‘Let these sleeping dogs lie; we have lost that fight so better not to remind anyone of it.’”
So there you go. Let sleeping dogs lie.
Wow. The man who many Republicans -- and conservatives -- have looked to since 2000 for wisdom did not think telling the truth about WMDs was a worthy political or military or moral endeavor. In Rove’s mind, the issue was settled in the public’s mind, and he just wanted to move on. It is clear that the main consideration was political.
To be fair, there were two lines of military reasoning given by the administration as well. One was that the WMDs they found were old and no longer any more potent than what the "average household has under the kitchen sink." Another was that they didn't want the Sunnis to get their hands on them.
“Well which is it?" asked an openly furious Mark Levin during his Thursday show last week. "This is where the dissembling starts. The ass covering. This is unbelievable. This is unacceptable."
I submit that all this proves a couple of things about Rove. First, he’s not the strategist he’s given credit for being. He’s a tactician, and that’s a totally different skill set. This notion of “turning the page” on WMDs is the babbling of a small picture bureaucrat, not a big picture strategist. He is not at all aware of what is going on outside the Beltway. Second, he is a soulless political hack. Set politics aside for a moment, and consider that any and every public official who knew the truth about this owed it to the country to make it known. Period.
So Rove managed to miss a grand opportunity to not only do the right thing, but to help his President and his party in the process. I’m sorry, but this is not the stuff of genius. He did this multiple times on many issues. Yes, George W. Bush owns a lot of this responsibility as well, but the ex-President is not out asking for contributions and running Super PACs and commenting on Fox News. Rove is, and that's why he is the pertinent figure now.
In the 2013 Amazon best-seller WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again, I chronicle many other instances where Rove applied similar thinking -- and all with devastating results. This started with the 2000 recount in Florida, where there was no push back at all on the popular vote meme, even though there were hundreds of thousands of Republicans who left polling places after NBC fraudulently called the race for Gore at 7 EST. That’s EASTERN.
There was also widespread corruption in South Dakota and other places. There were chances to at least mitigate this theme, if tried early, but none were taken. Let’s move on. Now the electorate thinks Gore won by millions. That will never change now.
This was also the communications strategy around Hurricane Katrina, where no one from the Rove team ever whispered a syllable about the culpability of Democrats in the Mayors and Governor’s offices -- which is where the bulk of the bad decisions were made. Not a whiff of a mention that Katrina was a failure of bureaucrats and Democrats. It all fell on Bush, which by association, fell on everyone who voted for him. Thus, when Chris Christie hugged Barack Obama on the tarmac a couple of days after Hurricane Sandy in 2012, Team Romney was forced once again to run against Bush and Katrina. Thanks Karl!!!! This stuff matters. For years!
And let’s not forget the economic meltdown, which was the direct result of three or four decades of liberal government perversion of the free market in areas of energy, lending, housing, esoteric derivatives, etc. Nope, can’t discuss that. Let’s move on. That gave us a McCain Campaign that figured it was best to run against Bush, and not Obama. Thanks again Karl. You can’t move on. When a political narrative goes unchallenged, it hardens and grows -- it does not go away.
This is how we get the Orwellian reality that our financial reform package is named after Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, two of the four individuals most responsible for the meltdown in the first place. In 2012, 53% of the country still blamed Bush for the economy -- and 53% voted Obama. Hmmm.
"They had a philosophy in the White House: Never respond to criticism," noted Rush Limbaugh on his Friday show last week. "Never defend yourself against any criticism no matter what happens because that'll just prolong the story. Rove has even admitted now that one of the big mistakes he made strategically... letting some of these allegations day to day, whatever they were, not just about the Iraq war, but let 'em all go by and not comment on it."
Clearly exasperated, Rush added all of this was
"so damn unnecessary. All because a political calculation was made to not revisit something that had already been determined... I swear, I do not understand this. How can you be a member of the Bush administration and know every day the lies that are being told... the absolute crumbling of the integrity of the institution of the presidency that was undergoing, and not even stand up and defend it. I don't understand it."
The answer is Rove being Rove.
And on an on it goes. This is who he is. This is what he actually believes. He is intellectually and morally bankrupt, and apparently hasn’t noticed the direct connection between conservatism and truth. If he did, he would try to make that connection once in a while in a TV ad or communications strategy. But no, we must just pander to this group or that group or issue A or issue B.
I was not impressed by Bush’s 2000 campaign, including the days right after the election. So in 2001 I bought the URL www.FireKarlRove.com. Never used it until last year, but I figure it’s a good one to have now. The abject decades of failure of Rove, and the entire Republican consultant class, is now a hot topic. This is a good, healthy and illustrative conversation to have. People now understand more about this group than ever. And frankly, I’m glad for the company.
The author is a contributor to American Thinker, Breitbart, Newsmax TV, Talk Radio Network, and the author of several books including WTF? How Karl Rove and the Establishment Lost…Again. He can be found on Facebook/Twitter under his name.
_________________________
George W. Bush was sabotaged from within his own administration, but not just the Rove lie, but among Democrats.
Beyond this periphery lies the true crux of the problem: these weapons were never confiscated by our military, but rather instructions provided the ground troops by their commanders to remain silent. Who instructed these officers to engage in a such a catastrophic policy? Was it Rove? Or was it someone far more sinister? Documents suggest at the conclusion of the report by the NYT that the Senate Intelligence Committee "underscored" the severity of what continued being located. Below will be provided a pair of documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee from 2004 and two years later in 2006.
As weapons of mass destructive were still being located as late as 2011, President Obama pulled our armed forces from Iraq. The nation had never been less violent nor so stable since prior to the regime of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party. Obama knew of these weapons being located when he pulled our military out of Iraq, but like any true Democrat, ignored pertinent details to ensure that his political viability not only was secure and sound, but would expand. That same year also saw the hoax that was the Osama bin Laden assassination, which also was a lie since Robert O'Neill for one was just the latest of multiple SEALs to claim he fired the kill shot, as well as other pertinent details which will be discussed shortly.
As weapons of mass destructive were still being located as late as 2011, President Obama pulled our armed forces from Iraq. The nation had never been less violent nor so stable since prior to the regime of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party. Obama knew of these weapons being located when he pulled our military out of Iraq, but like any true Democrat, ignored pertinent details to ensure that his political viability not only was secure and sound, but would expand. That same year also saw the hoax that was the Osama bin Laden assassination, which also was a lie since Robert O'Neill for one was just the latest of multiple SEALs to claim he fired the kill shot, as well as other pertinent details which will be discussed shortly.
Obama's history of "red lines" are traceable to his years in the Illinois State Senate. What you will read in this timeline from ABC News divulges his ever-changing rhetoric that puts John Kerry's record to shame:
Like any other Democrat, President Obama stands for nothing aside from the political trends of the moment... or so we thought until after the GOP swept through Congress in November 2014. And though agreements were made to release terrorists who were prisoners in Iraq have served as counterproductive measures, the president in lieu of the circumstances would have liked never hesitated to release Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi unilaterally as he did with "The Taliban Five". Per The Daily Mail, no one is quite certain superficially why Obama released al-Baghdadi, except for of course the common link between the two and Egypt's former president Mohamed Morsi as he was formerly a member of the Muslim Brotherhood:
Revealed: How Obama SET FREE the merciless terrorist warlord now leading the ISIS horde blazing a trail of destruction through Iraq
WARNING: GRAPHIC CONTENT
- The U.S. once had Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in custody at a detention facility in Iraq, it was revealed Friday
- Al Baghdadi was among the prisoners released in 2009 from the U.S.'s now-closed Camp Bucca near Umm Qasr in Iraq
- It is unclear why the U.S. let the merciless al Qaeda leader slip away
- Al Baghadadi and his troops took the Iraqi cities of Fallujah and Ramadi earlier this year and conquered Tikrit and Mosul within the last several days
- They are now bearing down on Baghdad, burning down everything that stands in their way and carrying out executions on Iraqi civilians, soldiers and police officers
- ISIS posted an image today of an officer's decapitated head tweeted with sickening message: 'This is our ball. It's made of skin #WorldCup'
By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS
PUBLISHED: 10:55 EST, 13 June 2014 | UPDATED: 14:20 EST, 13 June 2014
415
View comments
The United States once had Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams (ISIS) leader Abu Bakr al Baghdadi in custody at a detention facility in Iraq, but president Barack Obama let him go, it was revealed on Friday.
Al Baghdadi was among the prisoners released in 2009 from the U.S.'s now-closed Camp Bucca near Umm Qasr in Iraq.
But now five years later he is leading the army of ruthless extremists bearing down on Baghdad who want to turn the country into an Islamist state by blazing a bloody trail through towns and cities, executing Iraqi soldiers, beheading police officers and gunning down innocent civilians.
Scroll down for video
Add caption This uundated handout picture of jihadi leader of The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, also known as Abu Du'a, was provided by the Department of State. The U.S. government has a $10 million bounty out for the al Qaeda leader.
These are the only two known photos of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. He is seen here on th
e left as a prisoner half a decade ago and on the right more recently as the shadowy head of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, also known as ISIS
It is unclear why the U.S. let the merciless al Qaeda leader slip away, however, one theory proposed by The Telegraph is that al Baghadadi was granted amnesty along with thousands of other detainees because the U.S. was preparing to pull out of Iraq.
The United States began withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2010,and Camp Bucca closed in 2011 along with the United States' other military facilities as President Obama declared that the War in Iraq had come to an end.
Another possible explanation is that al Baghadadi did not become a jihadist until after his release from Camp Bucca.
The story of how Baghadadi ended up in U.S. custody in the first place and later came to be the leader of a violent terrorist group is the stuff of legend.
It is said by some that al Baghadadi was in the wrong place at the wrong time when he was picked up by the U.S. military, a farmer who got caught up in a massive sweep. It was at Camp Bucca that he was radicalized and became a follower of Osama Bin Laden.
Another version of the story is that al Baghadadi, who also goes by the alias of Abu Duaa, was an Islamic fundamentalist before the U.S. invaded Iraq and he became a leader in al Qaeda's network before he was arrested and detained by American forces in 2005.
'Abu Duaa was connected to the intimidation, torture and murder of local civilians in Qaim,' according to a 2005 U.S. intelligence report.
'He would kidnap individuals or entire families, accuse them, pronounce sentence and then publicly execute them.'
In the interest of a rare instant of censorship, I have chosen to not provide photographs of ISIS militants executing a police officer, even as one photograph is pixlated due to his head being shown on his lap.
Furthermore, the Mail states:
The U.S. now has a $10 million warrant out out of the brute, who is accused of bombing a mosque in Baghadad in 2011 and killing former Sunni lawmaker Khalid al-Fahdawl.
Al Baghadadi's use of aliases has made him a difficult man to pin down. The terrorist organizer rarely shows his face - even to his followers. There are only two known pictures of him in existence, and one is from before he was released from prison.
'We either arrested or killed a man of that name about half a dozen times, he is like a wraith who keeps reappearing, and I am not sure where fact and fiction meet,' Lieutenant-General Sir Graeme Lamb, a former British special forces commander, told The Telegraph.
'There are those who want to promote the idea that this man is invincible, when it may actually be several people using the same nom de guerre.'
Al Baghadadi and his troops had already taken key cities of Fallujah and Ramadi in Iraq earlier this year and have conquered the Iraqi cities of Tikrit and Mosul within the last several days.
They are now on the war path to Iraq's capitol city Baghadad.
The terrorist group's sudden rise in Iraq has taken the United States mostly by surprise.
President Obama famously said in October of 2011 that the American soldiers leaving Iraq would come home 'with their heads held high, proud of their success.
'That is how America’s military efforts in Iraq will end.'
___________________________________________
Except of course, the war has only just begun, one which will potentially prove catastrophic.
As promised, the article that will tie al-Baghdadi to Obama, Mohamed Morsi and now Erdogan is courtesy of Raymond Ibrahim, one of the foremost authorities online on Islamic jihadists:
New Revelation: ISIS Leader Originally from Muslim Brotherhood
by Raymond Ibrahim on October 15, 2014 in From The Arab World
In a new video interview, Shiekh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, one of the most respected clerics in the Muslim community and spiritual father of the Muslim Brotherhood, confirmed that the leader of the Islamic State, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, was once a member of the Brotherhood.
But he was always “inclined to be a leader,” so after he was released from prison (for his Brotherhood activities), he joined with the Islamic State, eventually rising to be its “caliph.”
According to Egyptian Minister of Religious Endowments (Awqaf), Dr. Muhammad Mukhtar Gom‘a, “Qaradawi’s confession confirms that the Brotherhood is the spiritual father to every extremist group.”
Qaradawi’s confession, of course, is not meant to cast aspersions on the Brotherhood. Rather, it seems that he was trying to revive the narrative that imprisoning and suppressing the Muslim Brotherhood—most recently in Egypt’s last revolution—only leads to greater “extremism.”
_______________________________________
Part V: Did Osama bin Laden Die on May 2, 2011 or in Mid-December 2001?
The source of all Sunni militant extremism is the Muslim Brotherhood. There can be no doubt that its legacy of terror is traceable to some of the following organizations: Hamas, al-Qaeda, the Taliban, ISIS and Boko Haram. As no one seems to know if there is a singular figure named Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, could it be asserted that perhaps Osama bin Laden may have been a myth too? In analyzing the side-by-side photographs of al-Baghdadi provided by the Mail, they bear little similarity with respect to the eyes, nose and the shape of the head:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is not Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. No one knows who al-Baghdadi really is, who gives me cause for concern as to the detail on Osama bin Laden's assassination by Robert O'Neill. Since ISIS is a radicalized branch which broke from the al-Qaeda sphere of influence, al-Baghdadi likely told the truth during his public eulogy of bin Laden since O'Neill himself claimed he did not recognize bin Laden's face upon entering the compound in the Peshawar region in Pakistan. Too, O'Neill is not the only man to claim he fired the shot which killed bin Laden. Per Time from 2013, a disgruntled SEAL discussed his disdain for the military's show of disrespect for his assassination of Osama bin Laden:
Bin Laden Killer, Feeling Betrayed by U.S. Government, Steps into Limelight. Kind Of
In an "Esquire" article, the Navy SEAL who claims to have killed Osama bin Laden says he has nothing to show for his 16 years of service
Pakistani soldiers stand guard on top of Osama bin Laden's hideout hours after Navy SEALs killed him inside (AAMIR QURESHI / AFP / Getty Images)
The spotlight of fame is burning ever brighter for the SEALs who took down Osama bin Laden. Last year we had Matt Bissonnette’s No Easy Day about the mission. Now Esquire magazine has released a story, to appear in its March issue, featuring the SEAL who claims to have been first inside bin Laden’s bedroom and fired the shots that killed him.
While the former SEAL, who reporter Phil Bronstein calls only “the Shooter” (he is not named in the piece), tells a unique tale, he also gripes that he has nothing to show for his 16 years of service.
The good:
The bad:
The ugly:The apparent fact that this is how one veteran feels he has to reach out to get the help he and his family need (although several vets believe the SEAL would be entitled to five years of medical care postservice from the Veterans Administration).Full story here.
While the Veterans Administration has failed America's veterans more egregious under Obama than any other president, causing great despair and unnecessary deaths in untold thousands of cases, the trend is clear; multiple "SEAL's" are singing the same tune, yet no two stories seem to corroborate.
Who is Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and more importantly, who is Osama bin Laden? Do either exist, and if so, who are they? What did Obama know and when did he know it? Why did Obama removed nearly all military installations from Iraq if he knew of the procurement of weapons of mass destruction in 2011, when the last ones were being recovered?
Finally, did the man attributed to being Osama bin Laden die on May 2, 2011, or was he actually murdered by Saeed Omar Sheikh, the man convicted in Pakistan for the murder of U.S./Israeli journalist Daniel Pearl? First, watch these 13 videos, noting the numerous references and actual copies of the full interview and the heavily edited editions. As no one in Pakistan believed bin Laden was assassinated that day, it begs to question just why one day after Benazir Bhutto's interview with David Frost, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared martial law in Pakistan as he was being threatened by political enemies of his government being toppled.
Finally, did the man attributed to being Osama bin Laden die on May 2, 2011, or was he actually murdered by Saeed Omar Sheikh, the man convicted in Pakistan for the murder of U.S./Israeli journalist Daniel Pearl? First, watch these 13 videos, noting the numerous references and actual copies of the full interview and the heavily edited editions. As no one in Pakistan believed bin Laden was assassinated that day, it begs to question just why one day after Benazir Bhutto's interview with David Frost, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf declared martial law in Pakistan as he was being threatened by political enemies of his government being toppled.
Lastly, if Bhutto "misspoke" as so many claim she did, why did Fox News release this breaking news on December 26, 2001 that bin Laden had died in mid-December that year in Pakistan, but which the details provided by Taliban representatives were elusive at best regarding where his remains were placed? If that is true, why did Musharraf serve as an ally against al-Qaeda while harboring a terrorist during the early stages of the war on terror? The ISI created the Taliban to serve as the buffer government for the chaotic Afghan vacuum of power. Omar Sheikh himself was a former ISI agent prior to his conviction in 2002 of the murder of Pearl.
The most pertinent question of all is this: Was Saeed Omar Sheikh, a London banker, the man who not only provided the funds for the September 11, 2001 attacks, but planned the entire operation and set up bin Laden to take the fall? Bin Laden, remember in the Dan Rather video, was reportedly in a Pakistan hospital on September 10, 2001 dying from renal failure. For your convenience, it will be reposted:
The Bhutto interviews (both uncensored and censored) with David Frost are in the playlist, but will also be played below:
The prior video from Al Jazeera is not edited. The next two videos are from different sources on the same video in comparing the Al Jazeera broadcast with that of the BBC's.
Lastly, the next video corroborates the prior analysis:
VI: Conclusion
Today, America is not alone is facing its greatest existential threat. The rest of mankind does too. In reading some of the transcripts from the summit on extremism held at the White House with primarily Cabinet secretaries and Islamic clergy, Joe Biden referenced the following as his major source for concern regarding terrorism:
A U.S. Islamic advocacy group says that Vice- President Joe Biden, addressing a White House summit on “countering violent extremism (CVE)” on Tuesday, referred to right-wing extremists and supremacists committing violence “in the name of the Bible.”
….In his opening remarks at Tuesday’s panel discussion, Biden said the U.S. and other countries need to tackle violent extremism not just by using force, but by engaging communities that are “marginalized.”
….“Societies have to provide an affirmative alternative for immigrant communities, a sense of opportunity, a sense of belonging that discredits the terrorist appeal to fear, isolation, hatred, resentment,” he said.
During a background briefing Monday on the three-day CVE summit, an administration official was asked about use of the phrase “vulnerable community,” which a questioner said was regarded by some as stigmatizing Muslims.
“We want to be clear that the evidence doesn’t show that there’s any particular community – there’s no profile that we can point to say this person is from this community, is going to be radicalized to violence,” the official replied.
There is no specificity in who among the right-wing Christian contingent is "extremist" per Biden. Did he mean to say that he does not consider ISIS to be extremists since the White House repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the cell as such, or that it is the "Islamic State" for a reason? Why is al-Qaeda not representative of the faith of Islam, yet the Ku Klux Klan and Westboro Baptist Church is far worse the Islamic terror? While no defense was provided for Christianity, which is at risk of genocidal annihilation in the Middle East and Africa, the following tweets were posted by
"Biden just talked about the right wing militias & supremacist groups that are violent in the name of the Bible" @HarisTarin #OpenCVESummit
— MPAC (@mpac_national) February 17, 2015
"We wanted them (WH) to include other type of violent extremists. Now they have, lets keep asking and push." -@HarisTarin #OpenCVESummit
— MPAC (@mpac_national) February 17, 2015
Furthermore, why does Obama continually assume the moral highground while he funds Neo Nazis in eastern Ukraine who not only are fighting Russian rebel forces and even the Russian military, but have engaged in the persecution of Jews in Donetsk which in the past 48 hours, has been evacuated by Ukrainian forces and sacked by Putin's militants? If you need proof Obama ordered U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Samantha Power to vote "no" to not funding and arming Neo Nazi militants or political parties, may I provide you the actual resolution by the UN that precludes Obama from not doing so, voted on November 21, 2014?
Could it be Joe Biden's son Hunter is the Director of the largest oil corporation in Ukraine, Burisma Holdings Ltd., which relies on Russian petroleum giant Gazprom for its life blood through the pipeline that extends as far west as France and south towards Turkey?
Obama and Biden's crony-capital endeavors are on the cusp of igniting a third global war. After all, why is Obama preoccupied with Russia as it is on the brink of economic collapse when Ukraine just received another bailout by the IMF?
Russia has every reason to consider war on the United States since it was the Obama administration that initiated the Ukrainian Spring.
As Putin himself brokered the entire ceasefire agreement with Ukraine's President Peroshenko, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande, why would he have crafted it in any manner that did not fulfill his every intention of conquering the entirety of Ukraine before expanding in Lithuania, Latvia and Belarus or into the Central Asian interior with Krygzstan? Putin bailed out Krygzstan's government and for all intents and purposes collapsed Ukraine's through warfare and shutting off oil pipeline flow into the country. Russia has multiple times mobilized the eastern frontier of Ukraine along its border with its own military, including this report from Reuters where Petro Poroshenko stated some 9,000 Russian armed forces troops were stationed in the east. Putin's reaction was one of sly pleasure as the continued incompetence of NATO and Obama:
The visual is a microcosm of the eye of the storm now in our midst. The Polish government also claims Moscow has engaged in "unprecedented" military activity within the Baltic Sea region. The Swedes reported the same. Russia also constructed Iran's nuclear reactors and likely, their fledgling nuclear weapon arsenal, in exchange for oil. Iranian media outlet Press TV corroborated the budding arrangement in November 2013.
Either way, Obama has lost the American people and the confidence of the rest of the world. It is now confirmed and can never be denied today: Barack Obama and the entire Democratic Party are cooperative members of the Muslim Brotherhood, and must be understood to represent the legacy and racist genocidal ideations of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party. I call things as I see them; you might say in employing a politically-incorrect term, I always call a spade, a spade.
And when I see a spade threatening to count the cards within the hand I am dealt, I will abruptly my hand, leaving the table and ensuring my house wins.
And when I see a spade threatening to count the cards within the hand I am dealt, I will abruptly my hand, leaving the table and ensuring my house wins.
Just listen to President Obama. We now know which side he is on:
US President Barack Obama says the US is "not at war with Islam - we are at war with the people who have perverted Islam".
Barack Obama: "We have to confront, squarely and honestly, the twisted ideologies that these terrorist groups use to incite people to violence"
No comments:
Post a Comment