|
Right now, I'm struggling over the top layer--what is ABC trying to do by publishing this, and by coloring it this way, or what is whoever is spinning it to ABC trying to do (and what relationship they have with ABC--is ABC in accord with them? would ABC shaft them? etc)?
Really, it is so difficult for ordinary Americans--the supposed ONLY sovereigns in this land, We the People--to know what is going on in our government. We are reduced to reading entrails, guessing at signs and omens, and we can almost never penetrate down to the global corporate predators and war profiteers who are actually running things.
Here are some two's and two's that I've tried to put together, as to the matter of deep power issues in the transition from the Bush Junta to the Obama administration, that might help us interpret this article.
Leon Panetta is no civilian, in my opinion. Remember that little flurry of 'snooze' about him being 'inexperienced' and how quickly that went away? Diane Feinstein briefly piped up publicly about his 'inexperience' then quickly shut her mouth and his nomination breezed through the Senate. Don't you think Pukes would have raised a pukey pile about Obama's incompetence if he really had appointed an inexperienced civilian to head the CIA--and a "Democrat politician" at that? Total silence.
Leon Panetta has his own foreign policy school out in Monterey (near the Navy language institute, where spies are trained). He was a member of Daddy Bush's "Iraq Study Group." He's deep cover CIA. More guesses about him. He was the CIA's Clinton handler when he worked as chief of staff in the Clinton White House. He's been deep cover CIA for a long time, probably since Vietnam. He may have been handling some things at a distance for the CIA during the Bush Junta, or maybe was actually retired or on inactive status (he's rather old) when the crisis of 2005-2006 period occurred. He was brought back into active service, and put in charge of the CIA (whose personnel welcomed him with champagne corks and cheers) to repair the agency, after the Cheney/Rumsfeld vs CIA war, that had broken into the open in mid-2003, with Cheney/Rumsfeld's outing of the entire CIA WMD counter-proliferation project headed by Plame. The very first thing that Panetta said about his role as appointed head of the CIA is that "no one in the CIA is going to be prosecuted."
But the 2005-2006 crisis was even more serious than this very serious war between the Cheney/Rumsfeld and the CIA. (Another guess) Cheney/Rumsfeld were intent on nuking Iran; military brass opposed it (possibly mainly because China and/or Russia may well have come in, on Iran's side--a threatened "armageddon"); Daddy Bush opposed it and formed the ISG mainly to get Bush Jr out of the deep doodoo he was in, as to both Iran and the CIA; and the CIA also opposed it. Cheney/Rumsfeld had already fucked up long range CIA projects to subvert Iran from within. Bush Jr's government was cracking to pieces, as Bush/Rove fought Cheney/Libby over who would be the fall guy for the attack on the CIA. (I think many in the CIA had opposed invading Iraq as well, and were outraged at Rumsfeld setting up his own shop, the "Office of Special Plans" to manufacture WMD "evidence" and to get around CIA professionals.)
It all started coming to a head in 2005, which may be why Bush Jr fucked up so badly during Katrina (and appeared to be standing out there all alone, "twisting in the wind"). A year later, Rumsfeld was out, Iran was "off the table" and the Democrats won Congress (if you can really say that anybody actually 'wins' elections any more, given the new 'TRADE SECRET' code voting system, controlled by a handful of rightwing corporations, with virtually no audit/recount controls--but that's a side discussion--how WE are manipulated--just as it is a side discussion, and a given, to the powers-that-be, that our will as a people is completely irrelevant).
How did Iran get "off the table"? Think about it. It happened almost simultaneously with Pelosi's strange announcement, just after the 2006 Congressional 'elections,' and a month before Rumsfeld resigned, that "impeachment is off the table." WHAT "table"?
I think cabal had formed, comprised of Daddy Bush and some of his ISG players (probably Panetta), the rebellious military brass, and other major players who were alarmed about the nuking of Iran and other signs of Cheney/Rumsfeld being totally out of control. This group made a deal with Cheney/Rumsfeld: no nuking of Iran; Rumsfeld resigns; and Cheney and Bush Jr. leave the White House peacefully when the time comes, and you will be given permanent immunity from prosecution for the following crimes: this insider group then listed all the incredible dirt they had gathered on Cheney and Rumsfeld.
The presidential candidates had to be vetted. Only those in agreement with "the deal" would be permitted anywhere near the White House. McCain might have been too close to Cheney/Rumsfeld to be trusted not to nuke Iran. He would certainly agree to immunity but would he keep the other part of the bargain? Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were both thoroughly vetted, both agreed to the immunity deal, and Obama was permitted to 'win.' (I think he really did win--on the strength of his early opposition to the Iraq War--but his mandate was significantly and fraudulently shaved, as one among many curtailments of his reformist tendencies.) Bill Clinton/Hillary Clinton, in all this, is a really complex issue, but one good guess is that Bill was involved with Bush Sr in propping up Bush Jr as Bush Jr's regime disintegrated. (Remember that strange press conference that Bush Jr finally held about Katrina, with Daddy Bush and Bill Clinton standing behind him like sentries, saying nothing--as if to say, "This IS the President"? That was all about Bush/Rove vs. Cheney/Libby, the war with the CIA and the rebellion against the nuking of Iran--not really about Katrina, which was mostly just a casualty of the blowup of this government, netting some more taxpayer funded profits for Blackwater-Xe).
I won't get into Hillary Clinton here, except to say that I think it was a side-deal Obama had to make with the DLC (so as not to be Diebolded in the primaries), and the main part of it may have been giving Hillary a free hand in Latin America (where she seems to be setting up Oil War II, or is permitting others--Bushwhack holdovers--to do so).
Fast-forward to this current news item from ABC: "The Deal" was immunity for the Bush Junta principles--Bush Jr., Cheney, Rumsfeld. How far down the chain it may go is anybody's guess. Cheney has been whining lately that Libby was not included. (Bush Jr. issued no pardons in his final weeks--he had no need to, from his point of view; the "important" people were covered by "the Deal.") But "the Deal" certainly did not extend to all those who were under Cheney/Rumsfeld's command, and that includes CIA who went along with Cheney/Rumsfeld and got involved in torture. A "shouting match" between Panetta and (good guess) Rahm Emmanuel (very likely also deep cover CIA) might indicate some kind of crack in "the Deal." Cheney/Rumsfeld had all along been trying to blame their crimes and fuckups on the CIA (--"bad intelligence"--what a hoot!). So it would be an excruciating irony--and completely unfair--for the CIA to be left holding the bag, while the main perps are permitted to get away scot free. Why would Obama or Emmanuel (esp. if he is CIA) want to go after the CIA at this point?
That I can only guess at, as well. Maybe they are after some Bushwhack moles. Maybe it is a power play, to try to gain White House control of the CIA (which has operated independently of the White House since at least the end of Eisenhower's term). Maybe some political pressures are in play, requiring some "sacrificial lambs" and Emmanuel is using that to get some CIA people out, whom he doesn't like or doesn't trust. Panetta clearly came in with a guarantee of no CIA prosecutions. He said as much, publicly. Everybody comes under his umbrella. The ABC article points to a breach of some agreement. I read somewhere that ABC (like the Washington Post) has been a CIA tool for a very long time. So the leak is probably on that side--the CIA leaked an account of the meeting, to give Emmanuel a demonstration of their power? Another possibility is that this is just a malicious political leak, by some Puke mole with big ears, to try to embarrass the Obama administration or rip it to pieces. But I favor the former--that it is a control on Emmanuel. But I don't have much of a clue about what Emmanuel is trying to do. Perhaps this is about Israel. Emmanuel suspects that there are some independent thinkers at the CIA about Israel, and he wants to root them out? An investigation of the torture issue at the CIA might do that. Maybe it's not a serious effort to prosecute for torture, but instead a fishing expedition-- a set up for a purge, or counter-measures, on some other issue. I can envision Emmanuel trying to sell this to Panetta as political pressure from Congress, and Panetta not buying it and demanding that the promise to him be kept: no prosecutions, and thus no serious (and certainly no public) investigation; the CIA cannot take the blame for torture when the decision-makers have been immunized!
Our government has become quite Byzantine and impenetrable. We just get these little hints, now and again--tips the iceberg, as our ship of state lumbers through the melting polar caps, barely avoiding one catastrophe after another. We, the powerless crew, know how to correct her course and get her into less dangerous waters, but nobody is listening to us, up there on deck, where the "deciders" are playing their own social games and power games, unable to "think outside the box," and just keep plowing forward into the icy deep, where entire Mt. Everests of ice are breaking off and lying in wait. We hear the scrapes and groans and sense the ghostly hazards ahead, and maybe catch some shouts between the captain and the officers about who is in charge, or who gets to sit at the captain's table, or what's for dinner, but we have no power--or we think we have no power--to influence the general course.
You may not agree with my analysis, and I admit that it's full of guessing and theorizing. I'm open-minded about it. But I do urge you not to take a 'snooze' item like this at face value. Above all, stay alert and awake; question its facts; question its origins; question the corporate 'news' monopolies' motives in publishing/broadcasting it. Try to get at the truth, not to depress yourself, but to find the right remedies and strategies to overcome our oppression as a people and restore our rightful place in OUR government. WHY is this being published/broadcast? Did it even happen? If so, did it happen the way they paint it? What's going on at the front of the stage? What's going on behind the curtain? Think critically, and never trust a corpo/fascist 'news' monopoly.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
