COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE IN SPUTNIK
Declassified Files Show FBI and NSA Routinely Broke Privacy Rules Under Obama
I have long suspected that Obama - who poses as an open-minded liberal - is in fact CIA.
This new information on intelligence abuses under Obama further supports a notion derived from many bits and pieces.
As very much does the fortress redoubt Obama made of a mansion in Washington, a place from which he continues to contact many different interests largely in secrecy, including some abroad we learn from time to time, advancing matters we know are on the CIA’s agenda, such as the important one of hobbling US-Russian relations.
There are many reasons for thinking Obama is CIA, including the blurry record of his birth and early life and a resume with definite holes in it.
He is certainly their type - an intelligent narcissist bordering on psychopathy - although historically CIA hires few blacks. But requirements change over time.
His record of activities as President strongly suggests this connection too.
He has launched every murderous campaign and coup abroad that CIA could possibly desire. None of it the kind of stuff a genuine political liberal would have anything to do with: Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, Yemen.
And then there is the industrial-scale extrajudicial murder program Obama launched - a program built and run by CIA, mind you, and a program reminiscent of the old Argentine junta’s practices decades ago when they used to just make people “disappear.” They did so in the thousands, and, of course, all of it was activity the CIA was aware of and gave no objection to. After all, leftists, even suspected ones, represented a threat to American business interests in South America.
In total, Obama’s smiling boyish face gave orders to kill at least half a million people and turn millions into refugees. The scale I think is not appreciated by most Americans.
It represented a continuation of the murderous American policies of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for eight years - President Bush fils being a silly, nodding figurehead too dumb ever to have been recruited or used by CIA - both men well connected to CIA historical operations abroad through their companies.
Obama’s pattern of behavior reminds me closely of that of George Bush pere, whom well-read people know was CIA going back to the days of the Kennedy assassination. We have snippets in documents.
Bush Pere launched a remarkable number of violent actions in his brief term, including the First Gulf War and the invasion of Panama. Characteristically of covert operations, these were done under elaborate ruses.
The First Gulf War involved the American Ambassador in private offering no objection to Saddam’s suggestion to her that Iraq should absorb Kuwait. We saw the actual dimly-lit, secretly-recorded video of the meeting that he broadcast when the US was invading. The Panama invasion used trumped-up drug charges against Noriega – and, of course, American laws which technically had no force in another country – to remove a man that the CIA felt threatened American control of the Panama Canal and promoted a too vigorous style of Panamanian nationalism. There was also a trumped-up nonsense, much broadcast by American television networks and published by other CIA-friendly outlets like Time and Newsweek, about an American sailor having been beaten.
And the CIA named its headquarters building in Langley after Bush, the kind of thing you don’t do for a former director of just two years duration. Sometimes, the good ol’ boys just can’t help tipping their hats.
While it is technically against the law in the US for the CIA to act domestically, a long trail of evidence – everything from some Wiki-Leaks documents to the CIA’s cozy relationship with Google and other American high-tech firms and to documents around the Kennedy assassination and still other matters - tells us they in fact very much do, including a long record of subsidizing certain magazines for which they had use, planting countless stories in America’s corporate press, to, at times, actually having agents covertly work for outfits like The New York Times and Washington Post.
And of course, since they are permitted to lie under oath, as we learned years ago from former Director Richard Helms, there is no way of accounting for their obeying American laws anyway.