by Scott Creighton
For years Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton flat out denied that “regime” change in Syria was their top priority. Back then, under the protection of left cover, they were all about “ISIS” and humanitarian intervention and stuff. Suggesting anything different back then meant you would be labeled a “conspiracy theorists” and chastised in polite circles or on social media as soon as the trolls got wind of you. It wasn’t until a couple years ago that they started to let it out a little that they “might” have “regime” change in mind.
And as we all know, the first stage of that program is destabilization.
Every now and then, when you put unpolished people in front of the cameras, a little bit of truth accidentally creeps out over here in the Shining City on the Hill. Like a thousand monkeys typing for a thousand years… eventually you’ll get a masterpiece. It’s the law of probability.
If the people who voted for Donald Trump wanted him to come in and be a D.C. disrupter, a real one, not a phony staged reality TV star version of that, well they got a little taste of it yesterday if they were paying attention.
When answering questions about the riff growing in the White House over how to move forward in Syria after the staged false flag PR event that was the “chemical weapons attack” last week, Sean got all tongue-tied trying to explain how the “Assad has to go!” faction and the “Assad can stay!” faction were really saying the same thing. ಠ_ಠ (yes, it’s an old dated meme but I like it)
Why don’t they just fire Nikki Haley and be done with it?
Haley is actively undermining the stated policy of the office of the president and whether it is by design or because she’s taking her orders from someone else, it just doesn’t matter. She has to go. Especially when you consider she’s openly advocating for a more war-like posture against a sovereign state, which has yet to be authorized by congress.
That’s essentially treason on a number of levels.
But apparently undermining the president and advocating war isn’t an unprecedented thing as of late. The Pentagon and the CIA undermined Obama’s peace deal with Russia back before the election when they “accidentally” bombed the Syrian Arab Army for an hour and then when that didn’t work to kill the deal, the CIA got their “moderate” terrorists to bomb a UN aid convoy in eastern Aleppo and tried to blame it on Assad.
I believe the same kind of thing happened in Khan Sheikhoun last week or at least a variation of it. Tillerson announced a Russian reset of sorts and proclaimed the Syrian people would be allowed to determine their own fate at the election box and the intel community with their Mockingbird attack dogs in the press went ballistic. The fact that it had been exposed that an insider provided Devin Nunes with information about the 5 Eyes being used to spy on Trump during and after the campaign didn’t help either. Something had to be done and I believe it was done without presidential approval.
Months ago we all understood there was a war being waged within the intelligence community and I personally don’t believe that conflict has been resolved.
Someone hacked Clinton’s server (Guccifer) and Podesta’s email account (Guccifer 2.0) and someone else took the leaks from the DNC and made sure they got published immediately. Someone killed the leaker Seth Rich in which was probably an intel asset hit to send a message to others who were thinking of following in his footsteps.
And while all this was going on, we now know Susan Rice was busy unmasking names from scooped up surveillance and spreading that info around to various agencies so it could be used against Trump during the campaign and possibly leaked in the future to undermine his new presidency. That intel more than likely was collected by the British under the 5 Eyes agreement as a favor to President Obama because he wanted Hillary to continue his policies but also because the British absolutely hated the idea of Trump in the White House since he had spoken unfavorably of interventionism and favorably of Brexit.
In short, it served the interests of the British establishment to… INTERFERE WITH OUR ELECTION.
Whoa. Anybody thought of that? It wasn’t the Russians who destabilized our democratic process (or what we call “democratic” anyway) but in fact, it was our own intel services fighting among themselves doing it from within… and the GD Brits doing it from abroad.
Think about that. Using Russia to cover up for what our 5 Eyes partner did.
Today, some in the industry claim they have decided that Russia and Putin were behind the “chemical weapons attack” in Syria last week. Others say that is far from a unanimous conclusion.
We know, we “conspiracy theorists” that is, we know that destabilization and “regime” change has been the 1st priority of the Syrian manufactured crisis since Day One. Hell, it even goes back way before then.
In 2005, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Syrian President Assad and said to him “Mr. President, you know the rhetoric of regime change is headed towards you from the United States….They’re talking about isolating you diplomatically and, perhaps, a coup d’etat or your regime crumbling. What are you thinking about that?” Consortium News
“or your regime crumbling” a.k.a. “destabilization” of the country via “moderate” terrorists and “ISIS”. That’s irregular warfare as described in the Special Operations manual. And who do we have over there “training” our “moderate” terrorists? Special Operations troops. That’s who. ಠ_ಠ (yeah, there it is again… deal with it.)
It’s painfully obvious that the 1st goal in Syria has always been destabilization with an eye toward “regime” change. It has been the understated policy for at least 12 years but people in the know like Christiane Amanpour and a couple “conspiracy theorists” let it slip every once and a while.
But none of them let it slip while standing behind a podium in the White House. And that sets Sean Spicer apart a bit in my opinion.
Yeah, he tried to cover up for his mistake by saying they were trying to “destabilize the conflict’ as if he wanted to make the “moderate” terrorist campaign worse or something… which might even be a more telling statement than his first slip-up.
If we take this statement as a confession, that’s one thing. But if we take it as an indictment of the previous administration AND as a possible clue as to what happened last week and what MAY happen in the future… then it takes on a whole different life of it’s own, doesn’t it?
Now, I’m not saying Spicer is in any way that clever or devious… but a truth slip is a truth slip and even if he didn’t MEAN to indict Obama, Clinton and all the intel assets that are STILL doing their bidding, it is entirely possibly that THAT is what he was saying to the press… because THAT is what he was THINKING.
This morning I have yet to see one single MSM outlet discuss his “slip” yesterday. It’s down the memory hole. The anti-Trump Washington Post mentioned it in passing way down at the bottom of this article saying they didn’t know what he meant by it. You would think they would harp all over that crap. But they didn’t. Of course, they were in the pockets of the Clinton regime during the entire election cycle and as we all know, the owner of that publication is DEEP in the pockets of the DEEP STATE… so I guess they figure the less people really think about that slip-up the better.
Which all goes to my previous conclusion.
In this business, sometimes you can make too much out of a line. But sometimes the whole world opens up like a book from just one, inadvertent slip. In this case, it’s obvious which side we should take on this one.
The first goal is as it always was and maybe, just maybe, it shouldn’t be.