Tuesday, January 22, 2008

Further reflections on the Sibel Edmonds story

The Sibel Edmonds story has taken a subtle turn, with an acknowledgment of the possibility that what Edmonds saw was a counter-proliferation operation (and no one told me about it; I made it all up myself!).  Both Ellsberg and Edmonds seem to think that any covert operation should be outed.  I agree (but I’m a conspiracy nut).  Do you think the average American would want a successful counter-proliferation operation, one against an ‘ally’ that isn’t much of an ally, ruined by making a big splash in the American press?  The Pentagon Papers was about the Pentagon deceiving the American people about the conduct and success of a disastrous war (kind of like what’s going on now!).  You’d think Ellsberg, of all people, could see the difference.


I must say I find it terribly amusing that the slurrers, incapable of admitting the truth of the treasonous Jews who tricked the Americans into war, not to mention incapable of accepting the most obvious fact of Jew-control of the American media (implicating the two-faced American Jewish community, whose desire for ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians is inextricably linked to Zionist imperialism, leading, whatever they may say, inexorably to the attack on Iraq and further attacks on the Middle East), are now without intellectual ammunition in understanding the implications of what Sibel saw.  The list of treasonous Zionists would be completely incapable of assisting Pakistan in obtaining the ‘Islamic bomb’.  The same tribal interests that led them to commit treason against the United States makes it impossible that they would take money to betray the Zionist Empire.  The slurrers will never be able to understand this, as they have fairy tales they prefer to believe, so they are quite ready to implicate the contra-proliferators in a proliferation-for-money operation.  Just as broken clocks are sometimes correct, the Noamian howler that Zionist and American Empire interests coincide exactly is, at least sometimes, true.


I note that the latest Sunday Times story derives from a revelation from a libertarian think tank called the Liberty Coalition, which got an anonymous tip (of course!) on just what FBI documents to request in the lottery known as Freedom of Information (a lottery as you lose unless you can guess the exact name of what you are going after; if you miss the slightest detail, the bureaucrats win!). Shades of Judicial Watch using Freedom of Information to make it appear that the attack on Iraq was about Cheney’s desire for oil. Rupert and some extreme right-wing nuts.  Odd players in the game, wot?  There is no doubt a dark reason we are now hearing about this, and I don’t think it’s Rupert’s inattention to detail.  A big splash is different than a small splash, and the small splash, raising doubts but not embarrassment, may be part of the whole operation.  You have to remember that some people in Pakistan may be in on this, people who prefer a dud, but don’t want to make a domestic political issue out of it.

0 comments: