9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

OBAMA FLUBS HIS FIRST BAY OF PIGS MOMENT by Webster Tarpley

Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2010 16:12:24 -0800 [06:12:24 PM CST]
From: "Webster Tarpley"
To: tarpley@tarpley.net
Subject: OBAMA FLUBS HIS FIRST BAY OF PIGS MOMENT

OBAMA FLUBS HIS FIRST BAY OF PIGS MOMENT AS TERROR MOLES ESCAPE PURGE

By Webster G. Tarpley

Washington DC , January 5, 2010 -- Obama's speech this afternoon was an incongruous performance. On the one hand, he angrily detailed a catastrophic breakdown in US intelligence procedures leading to the near-massacre of hundreds of airline passengers in the skies over Detroit on Christmas Day. On the other hand, there was no purge of the corrupt, complicit, and incompetent officials who had made this incident possible. No firings were announced. No heads rolled. The rogue network or invisible government of treasonous and subversive moles inside the US government which is behind the Detroit incident, and so many other incidents, remained untouched once again.

WOLFFE ON MSNBC: “COCK-UP OR CONSPIRACY” ?

The expectation that Obama might actually do something to combat the rogue network across US government institutions which inflicts terrorism on the American people and the world had been raised the night before in an interview by Washington journalist Richard Wolffe on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC Countdown program. Wolffe, citing high-level White House officials, had reported that there was an investigation into whether the security lapses leading to the Detroit Christmas incident had been intentional and deliberate, and thus the products of conscious sabotage. Wolffe had stated: “It seems that the president is leaning very much towards thinking this was a systemic failure by individuals who maybe had an alternative agenda….The question there is again, cock up or conspiracy. Was there a reason these agencies were at war with each other that prevented that intelligence from being shared?” (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#34694889) The goal, summarized Olbermann, was either a “turf war” or else the desire “to make somebody [Obama] look bad.” In reality, the goals involve a domestic police state and foreign geopolitical adventures.

Wolffe’s report had suggested that at least some firings were in the offing for officials responsible for the failure to stop Umar Farouk Mutallab from boarding his flight from Amsterdam to Detroit , despite the cascade of red flags associated with this particular patsy. But in his speech, Obama did not lay a glove on the invisible government forces which stage false flag terror incidents to manipulate public opinion and politics in the direction of increased totalitarianism at home and aggression abroad. Obama talked about what he would not tolerate, and about accountability in the abstract, but did not provide any concrete retribution to make moles think twice about future actions. Even David Gergen, the former White House official who faithfully represents the oligarchical point of view, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that he considered it virtually inconceivable for Obama to make such a speech without firing some failed officials.

THE BAY OF PIGS , 1961 – A DISTANT MIRROR FOR OBAMA

Obama’s situation offers certain parallels to the experience of John F. Kennedy in the Bay of Pigs invasion of April 1961. Upon entering office, Kennedy had been convinced by Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell of the CIA to support an invasion of Cuba , which the CIA promised would lead immediately to an insurrection throughout the island and thus to the overthrow of Fidel Castro. Instead, the invasion was a catastrophic failure and humiliation for the United States and for Kennedy personally. When Kennedy came into office, he had been inclined to work closely with operatives like Allen Dulles and Bissell, who personified the rogue network in its then-current form. Helped along -- according to some accounts -- by General Douglas MacArthur, Kennedy realized that the geopolitical forces behind and above the presidency which were seeking to use him for their own ends were also more than willing to ruin him politically and to cast him aside as an expendable puppet at the first opportunity. Over time, this led to Kennedy's deep and abiding mistrust of the rogue elements dominating the Pentagon, the CIA, the FBI, and other elements of the US government -- a mistrust which allowed Kennedy to resist the lunatic proposals for general war advanced by the rogue elements during the Cuban missile crisis. In the short run, Kennedy’s Bay of Pigs experience impelled him to fire Allen Dulles, Richard Bissell, and CIA deputy director Charles Cabell within less than a year after the failed invasion. Obama needs to imitate Kennedy’s response, on the fast track.

Today, the breakdown crisis of the Anglo-American world system is far more acute than anything Kennedy had to face. Obama needs to muster something more than mere impotent rage about what is happening to himself. If Obama wants to avoid the disastrous outcomes for himself and the country which are now clearly delineated, he will need to mount an ambitious purge of subversive and treasonous moles inside the federal bureaucracy, along with the incompetents, time servers, and bunglers who are happy to play along with the rogues.

WHO OBAMA SHOULD FIRE

Almost any of the twenty-odd officials who attended Obama’s special meeting in the White House today could be candidates for ouster for reasons of incompetence or worse. One obvious choice would be Michael E. Leiter, the head of the National Counter-Terrorism Center , which has the responsibility of integrating all the information from 16 agencies which was so obviously not integrated in the Mutallab case. Another might be Leiter’s boss Dennis C. Blair, the Director of National Intelligence or intelligence czar created after 9/11. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is widely discredited, and has lost the confidence of the American people through her interviews if nothing else. Napolitano is also the keeper of the no-fly list, on which Mutallab needed to be listed, but was not. Hillary Clinton’s State Department failed to revoke Mutallab’s US entry visa after the Nigerian’s father warned the US Embassy in Nigeria about his son’s visit to Yemen -- an outrageous lapse, or a deliberate sabotage. Leon Panetta’s CIA also had that information, and failed to make sure it was acted on. Gen. James Jones, the head of the National Security Council, is responsible for the overall coordination of the government, which in this case was substandard. FBI Director Robert Muller’s agents are up to their usual tricks of suppressing evidence in regard to the “well-dressed Indian” and the “man in orange” on the Detroit flight reported by an eyewitness, the Detroit attorney Kurt Haskell. (See http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/flight_253_pass...) Firing any of these failed or complicit officials would be a good start.

If Obama continues to punt on real accountability, the rogue network will conclude that he is indeed the weakling and pushover which French President Sarkozy and others have suspected him to be. In that case, the handwriting will be on the wall for new world catastrophes.

Views: 41

Comment

You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

Comment by Thoth II on January 11, 2010 at 6:54pm
I am starting to believe another of Webster's thesis: that the CIA is now deeply involved in political campaigns. For example, he claims that Watergate was really a CIA plot to weaken the presidency , and given that they didn't hesitate to take out JFK, not too surprising. (Ironic, since Nixon was at the Murchison house ratifying the assasination the night before, so you'd think he was a loyalist to them). With Obama, he claims he won the primaries due to CIA sponsored shanigans like dupe-a-mobs and rent-a-mobs similar to their meddling in "color revolutions" in other countries. This is spooky, but what, will they now remove Obama and replace him with , say, miss Palin?, when he has outlived his usefulness to them? Is Obama already privately rebelling against them and they are getting a wind of this? I don't know, but Webster sure has been right-on on a lot of stuff.
Comment by Shallel Octavia on January 6, 2010 at 9:21pm
Panetta really has dropped the ball. Doesn't he have any Osama stock footage? I mean
give us a cave complex or something. Monkey bars? Please?
He's got nuttin'!
Comment by James H. Fetzer on January 6, 2010 at 8:45pm
Yes, I am coming around to viewing Obama very much as Webster has been viewing him for some time now.
Comment by Thoth II on January 6, 2010 at 7:30pm
Web Tarpley is making a good thesis on his recent radio shows about Obama: he claims Obama is now following in W's footsteps in the following manner: just like Bush had an "axis of evil", Obama's admin. is now setting up an "axis of evil", now the "AfgaPak" and Yemen-Somalia (which are purportedly havens for Al Qaeda), and bombing is commencing in Yemen under these pretexts. And, just like Bush, with his "shoe bomber" et al, suddenly a new "underpants bomber" magically appears on the scene.
Comment by Thoth II on January 6, 2010 at 8:59am
"Today, the breakdown crisis of the Anglo-American world system is far more acute than anything Kennedy had to face. Obama needs to muster something more than mere impotent rage about what is happening to himself. If Obama wants to avoid the disastrous outcomes for himself and the country which are now clearly delineated, he will need to mount an ambitious purge of subversive and treasonous moles inside the federal bureaucracy, along with the incompetents, time servers, and bunglers who are happy to play along with the rogues."

The problem is, Jack Kennedy viscerally hated Lemay and other hawks and truly wanted to take decisive, strong steps toward world peace. Does Obama? What are his motives? disgust or limited hangout?

© 2024   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service