We have a prudent commander in chief in President Obama.
The CIA in 2012 proposed a detailed covert action plan designed to remove Syrian President Bashar Assad from power, but President Obama declined to approve it, current and former U.S. officials tell NBC News.
Source: Obama nixed CIA plan that could have stopped ISIS: Officials | MSNBC
Iran (1950’s), Guatemala, Dominican Republic, Congo, Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Iran (79-October Surprise), Iraq (1), Iraq (2-WMD’s)… Seems there’s a history here of regime change with our publicly owned secret protectors.
We don’t know the full story yet.
Maybe Obama didn’t want a potential Bay of Pigs.
Truthfully, my initial reaction to this was: In spite of support he refused the CIA? In light of History as some interpret it, it took Cojones to do that.
I would add to that list and include the US regime change of 1963.
I think the article posted in the opening of this thread may be propaganda designed to produce the response that he stood up to The Company.
Let’s also not forget his strongly advocating for bombing Syria for “humanitarian” reasons in 2013.
Exactly. Obama bombed Syria and by Saudi proxy Yemen while not bombing Thailand’s junta that have been proven to be doing inhumane things while the democratically elected government of Syria is unsubstantiated-ly accused of doing them. There was less proof (and NO authority via non-aggression principles) for a Syria bombing than there was for an Iraq bombing.
It seems that when there is a country of no current or impending strategic importance, they get a moral slap on the wrist and no real news coverage, but, even if you happen to be in a majority-controlling-minority nation heavily supervised by the UN and committed to the Chemical Weapons Convention, you may still get bombed by another uppity majority-controlling-minority nation that doesn’t lead by example but by police state and debt-as-currency enslavement principles and you will relentlessly be slaughtered by the government’s media mouthpieces.
America Created Al-Qaeda and the ISIS Terror Group
By Garikai Chengu
Global Research, February 18, 2016
Global Research 19 September 2014
“Incisive article originally published by GR in September 2014
Much like Al Qaeda, the Islamic State (ISIS) is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region.
The fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.
The CIA first aligned itself with extremist Islam during the Cold War era. Back then, America saw the world in rather simple terms: on one side, the Soviet Union and Third World nationalism, which America regarded as a Soviet tool; on the other side, Western nations and militant political Islam, which America considered an ally in the struggle against the Soviet Union.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/america-created-al-qaeda-and-the-isis-terror-group/5402881
\\][//
One Must understand the historical use of the concept of THE CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
From the time of the British Raj, to the creation and backing of al Qaeda by Western Intelligence; it is all a matter of brand names, and rebranding from, “the Muslim Brotherhood” [British Empire era] to the “Mujaheddin” [Reagan era] to al Qaeda [Bush era] to ISIS/ISIL [current era]:
Hillary Emails, Gold Dinars and Arab Springs
by F. William Engdahl
“Buried amid tens of thousands of pages of former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s secret emails, now being made public by the US Government, is a devastating email exchange between Clinton and her confidential adviser, Sid Blumenthal. It’s about Qaddafi and the US-coordinated intervention in 2011 to topple the Libyan ruler. It’s about gold and a potentially existential threat to the future of the US dollar as world reserve currency. It’s about Qaddafi’s plans then for the gold-based Dinar for Africa and the Arab oil world.
Two paragraphs in a recently declassified email from the illegal private server used by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the US-orchestrated war to destroy Libya’s Qaddafi in 2011 reveal a tightly-held secret agenda behind the Obama Administration’s war against Qaddafi, cynically named “Responsibility to Protect.”
Barack Obama, an indecisive and weak President, delegated all presidential responsibility for the Libya war to his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Clinton, who was an early backer of an Arab “regime change,” using the secret Muslim Brotherhood, invoked the new, bizarre principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) to justify the Libyan war, which she quickly turned into a NATO-led war. Under R2P, a silly notion promoted by the networks of George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, Clinton claimed, with no verifiable proof, that Qaddafi was bombing innocent Libyan civilians in the Benghazi region.
According to a New York Times report at the time, citing Obama…”
http://journal-neo.org/2016/03/17/hillary-emails-gold-dinars-and-arab-springs/
https://youtu.be/3mcewfimzcQ
\\][//
Libya wasn’t very different than the lies told about Iraq in preparation for the invasion there. R2P is a 1984ish type of term that in reality means devastate a nation and control it’s resources.
Jeff,
there’s so much misleading info in that NBC article that I’m disappointed that you posted it here.
– The headline is extremely misleading. ISIS aka the Islamic State was founded in Iraq in 2006. Their expansion into Syria may not have happened without the Syrian civil war but their parent organizations, Al Qaeda in Iraq and the Islamic State of Iraq, existed long before 2013.
http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2013/11/syria-islamic-state-iraq-sham-growth.html
– The Obama administration approved sending arms and other support to the Syrian rebels in 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120802
– The WSJ reported that the Obama administration in fact DID try to orchestrate a military coup against Assad in Syria
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/12/27/report-obama-administration-tried-encourage-military-coup-syria/
There are many parallels here between Obama and Syria and JFK and Cuba.
For years, the hawks in Obama’s administration have pressured the President to use more aggressive and direct action to overthrow Bashar Assad. President Obama has resisted and always stopped short of what they wanted him to do.
President Obama’s tug of war over Syria with the DC foreign policy establishment is described in detail by Jeffrey Goldberg in a recent feature in The Atlantic magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
You don’t need to change the regime to change the regime.
When you have a book to sell, the means justify the ends in CIA parlance. Throwing a lame-duck president under the bus is standard fair for CIA. especially if they disagreed with POTUS. At least they didn’t assassinate him this time, only wrote out their policy disagreement. Here we see the CIA still has a culture of knowing what’s best for the country. CIA publicly confesses it is still in the coup business. Look at who’s dangling this coup plan as a failure of nerves. “Petraeus believes it might have, as does Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria, and Leon Panetta, the former defense secretary, former senior U.S officials told NBC News.” The CIA is, again, fanning the flames of inter-departmental intrigues, backhanding POTUS as if they are his pimps, and fomenting dissent in quarters of unseen influence and power – International Bankers?
Maybe I’m overly cynical or just plain disillusioned by the whole system but given our overall foriegn policy when I read the article my first thought was that it was a planned propaganda piece designed to foster the concept that the prez doesn’t work for The Company.
Of course I would probably see it different if I was a subscriber to the republican or democrat brand. Repubs probably see it as we blew our chances to get rid of Assad and dems probably see it as the prez is some type of humanitarian. They can debate about which is the case. Cynics like me won’t know for sure but will tend to think it could be propaganda.
I argue it is cynical to not question what you are being told. You are on the right side of sapience.
Thank you. I guesss it depends what one is cynical about. I’m cynical about MSM. Thanks for the youtube link. He seems interesting. I will check out some of his others too.