In Parts 1-4 I walked through what a great job Dan Bongino has done over the years as a leading conservative voice of sanity and bringing the fight to the looney left, while introducing my hypothesis that I believe Dan is wrong that there was no central coordinator or choreographer of the Russia Collusion Hoax against Trump-as I believe it was Obama. Obama -as president-was supposed to be the responsible adult in the room. He was the one man who could have stopped it: but didn’t.
I introduced some of the worst lies of the Obama lot over the last two parts-Fast and Furious, ACA, Benghazi, and the secret Iranian nuclear dialogue that began with early comments after his election. Writing about the details reinforces how intent Obama was in pursuing an Iran initiative against the will of ~88% of Americans who had an unfavorable view of Iran: it’s just mind blowing to think and work through.
My end state objective with this series-and dear reader will be the absolute judge of whether these rounds hit the target or not-is to present what I believe to be the proof for my hypothesis that Obama was absolutely that guy-by describing examples of his behavior that support my premise.
In order to believe that Obama would do the types of things that were done to Trump-lead it, orchestrate it, be the silent hand pushing and goading and prodding things into place to make things happen-vice things that didn’t happen-inspiring folks to do the things necessary-providing a winky or a nod at the right time in the right place to the right person-being the name that was dropped in a pinch-we would need to establish in the way of bona fides that there were some types of patterns of established behaviors leading up to it from the past-of similar actions or activity that could be cited.
They would necessarily have to be the kind of behaviors, actions and acts like and in kind to what would have had to take place-largely behind the scenes-to bring things to fruition, no matter how loosely coordinated or happenstance they might appear to the casual-or even the close observer.
To pick up where we left off with Iran in Part 4, just after Obama’s reelection-this was a mere 5 months after Benghazi with much of the strife and contention ongoing in congress, Iran was being “whispered about” in the swamp. As discussed in Part 4, with rumors circulating slowly but persistently like a waning-or growing campfire in the swamp, it took some months for it to happen, but we see future “talent” emerge in the form of State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland, who in February 2013 responded to inquiries about reported discussions by flatly denying any “direct, secret bilateral talks with Iran.” I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is the first appearance for somebody who was destined to become an active and regular member of the band.
It was good to know the Obama administration was not doing such a thing in the face of a spate of stories by the LSMBTG playing up the pending Iran elections and the potential for moderates to make great gains (similar to the Texas blue gains anticipated in 2016-2018-2020: much like those, all hogwashery.)
The spokeswoman who replaced Nuland at State-a gal named Jen Psaki (Poosaki to me)-was apparently not bound by the commentary of the person she replaced, as she would sometime later admit to Fox News James Rosen the Iranian discussions “stretched back to 2011:” Wait, what? 2011??? Well before the election??? Shazam and how about them lemons?
Now, again, I don’t know Vern-but recall from Part 4 that Nuland’s response was accepted, but “Republicans on Capitol Hill were nervous about the rumors, but the media was willing to accept the State Department’s denial. The secret negotiations with Iran also alarmed America’s allies in Jerusalem, who had also been kept in the dark about their closest ally’s clandestine meetings with their most potent adversary.”
Enter the story tellers. From the article:
Under these conditions, Obama—with the help of an equally arrogant 38-year-old national security fabulist, Ben Rhodes (with whom he’s said to “mind-meld”)—succeeded in remaking the Middle East to empower America’s most hated enemy, the only United Nations member state committed to the annihilation of another state: the theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran.
Throughout the intervening time, the Obama narrative and Rhodes strategy was being laid on the public via the LSMBTG like marine paint over rotten wood-as thick as possible with the goal of being just enough for one more use. The timelines didn’t match up-but they didn’t have to if you could get enough doowappers to doowap in time with the supported narrative.
Somehow Poosaki’s admission later in 2013 that negotiations had started in earnest in 2011 was okay because the victory by now moderate President Hassan Rouhani was tantamount to the breakthrough the wily Obama and team had been counting on: so that’s why he had started the dialogue when the mad man Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was in power.
Now it all makes sense, right? Question in the back? Does that mean I voted for a “hope and change guy” who was negotiating with the Iranian maniac whose idea of those two was “death to America” and the removal of Israel-Jews-from the earth? From the article:
One of the “overarching plotlines” Rhodes crafted credited Hassan Rouhani’s election in June with signaling a new willingness of Iranians to negotiate that the Obama administration then embraced. Obama, of course, would play the hero; the villains, however, numbered in the thousands, like the cast of “Ben Hur”: neocons, and those darkly loyal to Israel’s interests; partisan Republicans; knuckle-dragging warmongers, and other enemies of the peace.
As we will see in a minute, Rouhani as moderate was emerging as somewhat of the “base” stick holding all the other pickup sticks in the pile. This strategy lost no time in debuting formally before congress (from the article):
The clearest example of this (now obviously false) narrative was peddled directly to Congress, in testimony by Colin Kahl, deputy assistant to the president and national security advisor to Vice President Joe Biden. On November 13, 2013, Kahl opened his remarks: The long-simmering nuclear crisis with Iran is approaching a critical inflection point. The election of Hassan Rouhani, a moderate former nuclear negotiator, as Iran’s new president has re-energized diplomacy between Iran and the P5+1 (the United States, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia). Sanctions have taken a heavy toll on the Iranian economy, and Rouhani believes he has a popular mandate and sufficient latitude from Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to reach an accommodation with the international community in exchange for lessening the pressure. The prospects for a comprehensive agreement to peacefully resolve the nuclear impasse have never been higher.
National Public Radio was only too happy to oblige with this happy piece that played up the results of the election. The only thing better than having our Obama administration officials misleading congress is to have taxpayer funded broadcast media do the same!
It was all bullspit. The way the Iranians micro-managed the elections is by forcing potential parties to designate a lead affiliated with the ruling party-kind of how the Soviets had a political officer in most organizations-who spoke for them (from the article):
Rather, the elections should have been seen as a rebuke of the president’s policy, as 99 percent of reformist candidates were disqualified before any votes were ever cast. To even compete, so-called “moderate” parties were forced to accept hard-liners loyal to Khamenei. The elections thus cemented hard-liner control of Iran as never before. Ayatollah Khamenei, to underline this, declared that anyone who thought that the future of Iran was in diplomacy instead of missiles was either a fool or a traitor. But if you read it in American newspapers, thanks to Rhodes, you’d think that Iran has continued moderating in a positive direction.
None of the above mattered-who are you going to believe-the message from the Iranians who are forced to say things publicly that they don’t really mean? Or President Obama and his negotiation team?
Obama’s strategy implemented by Rhodes was to plant the lies Obama needed to communicate with an unwitting public through inexperienced journalist “compadres” or “paesanos”-writing in social media or fringe periodicals popular with youth that would be bolstered by the LSMBTG and select think tank friendlies, who would pile on to add the necessary veneer of legitimacy to lend credence to the bogus narratives.
Evil Genius or Machiavellian is not too strong a term for such people and their plans. One of the strangest parts of this story before we dive into more detail is that Rhodes was proud of it! As the above article details, he gave interviews and freely discussed how he went about making up and crafting the messaging and the narrative Obama wished to circulate, as well as the methodology he employed to douse people with it and the criteria he followed picking out the LSMBTG to use: and use them he did. And they-the LSMBTG that was used like the proverbial rented mule-did not offer a whelp…
Yet many who still apparently feel the Obama “thrill up their leg” don’t believe this ever happened-even in the face of Rhodes bragging about it and taking credit for it. There is no precedent that I know of to compare it to unless we think about it in terms of Fusion GPS-Glenn Simpson’s wife-posting a note touting his efforts to make up a Russia Hoax in 2008 and making sure the public knows that Glenn was responsible for making up the hoax to smear Trump based on it. Nah, that one too-don’t believe it!
The ramifications of such a policy were predictable and shortly realized. This Hot Air article details Rhodes lies but this summary is a devastating statement of what resulted from such a predictably naïve and irresponsible approach:
In the New York Times Magazine, Rhodes—and, by extension, the president he continues to work for—confessed to misleading the media, members of Congress, and the American people, all in service of a truly massive re-alignment of the nation’s interests and security.
Abandoning longtime allies while embracing states that have long been enemies is a massive strategic shift more momentous than what can ordinarily be explained as “foreign policy”; in a free society, it requires the assent of the American people. Like its manipulation of the Constitution’s treaty process, this White House subverted that assent to convince Americans that they live in a different, less dangerous world.
Operating as if we live in that different world, though, is a treacherous illusion. Some of the tangible results, not yet a year after the Iran deal: the consolidation of hard-liner power in Iran; the collapse of the ban on Iran’s testing of ballistic missile sales; the collapse of the arms control regimes preventing Iran from buying heavy weapons and missiles from Russia; Iran’s staging of multiple new ballistic missile tests; and, finally, that Iran has generated so much new enriched uranium, they’ve had to ship tons to Russia.
This interview with the widely respected Robert Gates has good insights that insinuate an atmosphere of surrounding yourself with “yes men” and inexperienced advisors, but he was not pressed on his thoughts about the Obama administration making up narratives to tell the public what they wanted to hear-but rather the problems when the president is being told what he wants to hear.
James Rosen also presents material that exposes the direct lies by Deputy National Security Advisor Rhodes on the inspection regime, as well as a much later walk back of it by Kerry-and the disappearance of Jen Poosaki’s podium acknowledgement that Iran talks began in 2011.
In hindsight the tell that such a dialogue (Obama with Iran) was maturing and becoming a “thang” was the emergence of Israel-or more appropriately Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu-as somewhat of an enemy of the Obama state, particularly as the talks gained momentum into 2014. While initially somewhat subtle, those who watch and pay attention to such matters could sense, feel it, believe there was something there that was growing over the years. Eventually to the point of becoming somewhat of a puzzlement-what I like to call a conegma (a conundrum wrapped in an enigma)-something that you can’t make sense of in the midst of things that don’t seem to go together. Netanyahu in particular was being targeted for shoddy treatment by the administration.
It would have been the most natural thing in the world to believe that Obama-with his natural affinity to deploy his oratory skills in defense of radical Islam’s continued butchery in the middle east at the time, coupled with increasing pressure within the democrat party to do something about the Palestinian “problem”-might be inclined to keep Israel somewhat at arms-length. But there was more going on here than some referee-like analogy where the US was trying to remain as somewhat of a neutral arbiter or intermediary to appear to not be taking sides.
Tension with Israel emerged as a hot topic at the end of the Bush administration as Israel made some surprising “adjustments” to Syria’s nuclear developments.
Max Dribbler
27 March 2022
LSMBTG: Lamestream media echo chamber (LMEC-L) social media (SM) big tech tyrants (BT) and government (G)
Follow AFNN:
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA