[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
International News Title: Hmmm, Do I “Want to Believe?” I have to admit, I read the some of the early Ulsterman articles. Have you? I should clarify though, I’ve always thought his articles only represented a clever fiction. The unknown author, the unidentified DC insider, the high level of information covering a broad spectrum partisan politics that cannot be confirmed, all of it screams fantasy. However, I have to wonder if it is possible that a political fiction, presented in Ulsterman’s Deep Throat style of outing interesting insider information, could end up proving prescient. Ulsterman’s May 3rd post on the inside workings of the operation to kill or capture OBL, prior to and following the execution of the mission, paints a picture of a President with little ability to make a decision on his own. It also attempts to paint key administration officials at Intelligence, State, and Defense (Panetta, Clinton, and Gates) as the actual movers and shakers in the mission to take out OBL. Like I said, I normally chalk up Ulsterman’s writings as simple fantasy but, even if the entire story came to him in a dream on May 2nd, it is crafted in such a way that it almost seems to be tracking right along side the news cycle rather than following it. In the three days following a significant benchmark in this country’s war against terrorism, the story about how it occurred, from planning to implementation, and even what is going to happen next, seems to be passing through a sieve as it’s being presented to public for consumption. A source here, a source there, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is sharing interesting information. Then, even clearly identified sources add their sound bites sending the press to push out the newest piece of the puzzle as soon as possible. But before the news cycle has ended, much of this information has been filtered out leaving fresh tidbits to replace unwelcomed narrative. As I mentioned in a previous post, this type of handling of the message breeds theories that there are alternatives to the official story. But, if you look at it in the context of Ulsterman’s article, the sifting of the official story almost seem to add credence to some of the elements of his report. Leon Panetta tells us the photo of a dead OBL is coming, the White House says, “No way.” John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor (read – an administration czar), tells the press that OBL was armed, that there was a firefight, and OBL shielded himself behind a woman. Then unidentified sources at the Pentagon claim BS on that, stating OBL was unarmed – this is followed by the White House issuing a more “textured account” of events on the ground, including a statement that OBL was unarmed. Plus, we’ve heard from the President that his decision making was extra decisive after taking nine months to confirm the intelligence about OBL’s location. Yet, at least one press outlet has published a report that suggests that the President wasn’t as decisive has he let on, still needing a little extra time to think on things before taking action. Without having read Ulsterman’s report, I would take all of the above to indicate several things; chief among them, there is no single point within the White House directing the narrative. This suggests that either central leadership within the administration is weak or the role of leader is up for grabs. I have to admit, I read the some of the early Ulsterman articles. Have you? I should clarify though, I’ve always thought his articles only represented a clever fiction. The unknown author, the unidentified DC insider, the high level of information covering a broad spectrum partisan politics that cannot be confirmed, all of it screams fantasy. However, I have to wonder if it is possible that a political fiction, presented in Ulsterman’s Deep Throat style of outing interesting insider information, could end up proving prescient. Ulsterman’s May 3rd post on the inside workings of the operation to kill or capture OBL, prior to and following the execution of the mission, paints a picture of a President with little ability to make a decision on his own. It also attempts to paint key administration officials at Intelligence, State, and Defense (Panetta, Clinton, and Gates) as the actual movers and shakers in the mission to take out OBL. Like I said, I normally chalk up Ulsterman’s writings as simple fantasy but, even if the entire story came to him in a dream on May 2nd, it is crafted in such a way that it almost seems to be tracking right along side the news cycle rather than following it. In the three days following a significant benchmark in this country’s war against terrorism, the story about how it occurred, from planning to implementation, and even what is going to happen next, seems to be passing through a sieve as it’s being presented to public for consumption. A source here, a source there, speaking on the condition of anonymity, is sharing interesting information. Then, even clearly identified sources add their sound bites sending the press to push out the newest piece of the puzzle as soon as possible. But before the news cycle has ended, much of this information has been filtered out leaving fresh tidbits to replace unwelcomed narrative. As I mentioned in a previous post, this type of handling of the message breeds theories that there are alternatives to the official story. But, if you look at it in the context of Ulsterman’s article, the sifting of the official story almost seem to add credence to some of the elements of his report. Leon Panetta tells us the photo of a dead OBL is coming, the White House says, “No way.” John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor (read – an administration czar), tells the press that OBL was armed, that there was a firefight, and OBL shielded himself behind a woman. Then unidentified sources at the Pentagon claim BS on that, stating OBL was unarmed – this is followed by the White House issuing a more “textured account” of events on the ground, including a statement that OBL was unarmed. Plus, we’ve heard from the President that his decision making was extra decisive after taking nine months to confirm the intelligence about OBL’s location. Yet, at least one press outlet has published a report that suggests that the President wasn’t as decisive has he let on, still needing a little extra time to think on things before taking action. Without having read Ulsterman’s report, I would take all of the above to indicate several things; chief among them, there is no single point within the White House directing the narrative. This suggests that either central leadership within the administration is weak or the role of leader is up for grabs. Even if Ulsterman’s report is no more than some blogger’s effort at drawing conclusions from the facts at hand, this administration is doing a fine job outing itself as an organization fraught with internal conflicts. If things keep going this way, it won’t take an unidentified insider to prove it to us.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
#1. To: All (#0)
Repeated a few paragraphs, apologies.
Yes, an element of the so called right wing in America would rather believe made up fiction rather than accept reality.
Link to Ulsterman on LF.
Simple question you passed at #3 shows your interest in truth.
Let's see - Afghanistan / Washington D.C. / thousands of miles / if what you are thinking - a video feed from helmet cams existed streaming live - then yea it would and could cut out. I lose connection to wireless when I move from room to room sometimes. I read that what the DC room was watching was the external area and saw troops enter building but could not see inside building. Either explanation is plausible. I am not a tim foil hat kook and you don't have to be one either. Embrace Occam's Razo and reality will become clearer to you.
I hate to step on your toes but that was a SECURECONNECTION using SATCOM. Your tax dollars (BILLIONS) provide the highest definition and reliability that modern technology can provide. There was no outage. It is considered classified data and any of this incident was prematurely publicized by 0bama. Now, all you see is backtracking. The question you should consider is WHY. It is because the entire operation was incorrectly handled. There are many ramifications about this operation GERONIMO that shall impact our own lives stateside as well as around th world.
How so? And yes, the "cut video" ploy is silly.
As you know, the OBL research team (out of the US Pentagon, a staff of about 15 personnel and about 100 field agents) was disbanded about 2008. Since then, there has been a renewed push by the 0bama administration to find him. But, there was never supposed to be a murder. It was supposed to be a kidnapping with the possibility of collecting detailed information about the entire past and current operations. The Pakistani AirForce caused an unexpected mishap as the entire venture was clandestine and took longer than was expected. They flew over the compound with two fully armed jet aircraft. And the mission was aborted thereafter for the safe return of the ground or field CIA personnel involved. This involved quick bungling the operation to ensure a valid claim was made. What it all means is that OBL wasn't captured as planned. And since the US government authorized the mission impacting international agreements, it has lead to the idea that the USA operates outside of established treaties and as a result has compromised its own reliability and agreements with established friendly nations. On the homefront, we have documented PROOF about how ruthless the US government is, with respect to using military force even if there is some likelihood that the person or persons are not involved with the mission. It is Waco, Tx, circa 1993 via Bill Clinton all over again. The US government does not act within the confines of law or any authority other than being a pile of jackbooted thugs.
Source?
It must be terribly frustrating to have access to the internet and still remain as stupid as you do!
Mammy, the grammatically correct way to state this is to say "and still remain as stupid as you are" You're welcome.
That too...
There are no replies to Comment # 28. End Trace Mode for Comment # 28.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|