Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Revmitchell, Oct 29, 2015.
Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/...obama-our-worst-fears-are-true/#ixzz3q1Fs0mLX
Okay I'll see your article written by a neocon propagandist and raise you one article written by an award winning investigative journalist.
Annals of National Security MARCH 5, 2007 ISSUE
Is the Administration’s new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
BY SEYMOUR M. HERSH
A STRATEGIC SHIFT
In the past few months, as the situation in Iraq has deteriorated, the Bush Administration, in both its public diplomacy and its covert operations, has significantly shifted its Middle East strategy. The “redirection,” as some inside the White House have called the new strategy, has brought the United States closer to an open confrontation with Iran and, in parts of the region, propelled it into a widening sectarian conflict between Shiite and Sunni Muslims.
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Continue . . . http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
Did you notice Sy's article was published in 2007? Here's more . . .
May 11, 2012 - A 2007 New Yorker article written by renowned journalist Seymour Hersh revealed a plan under the Bush Administration to organize, arm, train, and deploy a regional army of terrorists, many with ties directly to Al Qaeda, in a bid to destabilize and overthrow both Syria and Iran. The plan consisted of US and Israeli backing, covertly funneled through Saudi proxies to conceal Washington and Tel Aviv's role, in building the sectarian extremist front.
According to Seymour Hersh's 2007 article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?," (1) Saudi Arabia, a more credible candidate for openly interfacing with the militants, openly admitted that it was a danger, but that they "created it," and therefore could "control it," in meetings with Washington. The plan called for not only setting up terrorist enclaves in nations neighboring Syria, including Lebanon, Jordan, and US-occupied Iraq, but also for building up the Muslim Brotherhood, both inside Syria's borders and beyond - including in Egypt.
Hersh's work now holds new relevance as revelations that indeed a sectarian-extremist element is behind the violence in Syria, including a horrific bombing in Damascus (2) that has killed scores and injured hundreds. That these terrorist elements are openly supported by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, with militants and weapons flowing in from the above mentioned Iraq, Jordan, and Lebanon, (3) just as planned in 2007, shows clearly that the US-Israeli-Saudi plan is unfolding as intended.
Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/sunni-extremists-ravaging-syria-created.html
"Obama the Muslim:" Ploy to Cover-up Years of US-Al Qaeda Support
US establishment admits arming Al Qaeda, but blames it on "Obama the Muslim."
by Tony Cartalucci
October 24, 2012 - Neo-Conservative Frank Gaffney thinks you are stupid. After plotting for the better part of a decade, arming Al Qaeda across the Arab World in a documented conspiracy to use the notorious terror group as a proxy against Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, Gaffney and his colleagues are attempting to jettison responsibility and all the blunders that have come with the plot, on US President Barack Obama. President Obama for his part, faithfully and knowingly carried out this strategy, "heeding" signed letters sent to him from Gaffney's warmongering circle, imploring him to not only support terrorists in Libya and Syria, but to do so more overtly.
Gaffney, in a Washington Times article titled, "GAFFNEY: The real reason behind Benghazigate: Was Obama gun-walking arms to jihadists?" Gaffney answers the question by stating correctly, "yes." What Gaffney doesn't tell readers is that the plan to arm these terrorists and array them against Syria was a plan set into motion, not by Obama the alleged "crypto-Muslim," but in 2007 during the Bush administration.
Continue . . . http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/10/obama-muslim-ploy-to-cover-up-years-of.html
In other words Obama is continuing the neocon divide and conquer plan to destabilize the middle east to get to Iran and ultimately Russia.
In other other words the woman that wrote the article you posted is either ignorant of facts known in 2007 or is deliberately lying to shift the blame away from her neocon colleagues that dreamed up this insanely dangerous foreign policy that Obama has been following.
I don't get it Rev, I try and try and try to keep you fully informed and up to date on all this stuff but you still keep falling for these easily debunked neocon propaganda pieces. Rolleyes
Let's take a look at your "source" . . . Center for Security Policy was founded in 1988 and states that it operates as a "non-profit, non-partisan organization committed to the time-tested philosophy of promoting international peace through American strength."
They might as well hang out a neon sign that says NEOCON PROPAGANDA ALL YOU CAN EAT
Calling someone a neocon does not ensure you and your source are right or even better.
Something/someone has gone astray when we trade 5 terrorists for a man of questionable honor.
What else does one call a neocon? Are you trying to say that posting an article that was debunked years before it was even written means your source is right or even better?
Explain to me how that's supposed to work.
Sy Hersh's agenda is to inform the public with accurate facts and information. What's your source's agenda?
No I didn't expect the Rev to reply.