Ever wonder which side President Obama is really rooting for? Even though he is the leader of the free world, his actions belie that he is acting in the interest of Americans.
Why does he ignore his generals’ warnings? Why is he so slow to react to events? Why does he insist on no boots on the ground? Why are his policies perplexing to many? He was sold to Americans as one of the smartest presidents we’ve ever had, yet he doesn’t seem to understand foreign politics. Is this a lie or does he not want to understand?
DW Ulsterman, a blogger who has many contacts in Washington, attempts to enlighten us. He wrote last week that “While attention was primarily focused on today’s first of many select committee hearings on the Benghazi cover-up, a communication was received detailing why the real interest should have been on the performance of Secretary of State John Kerry as he spoke before the Senate Foreign Relations committee. It was there further evidence of the administration’s determination to take out Syria’s Bashar al-Assad was repeated, as well as the White House’s indifference to congressional authority to do so, in what the source describes as the “looking beyond the lie” for what is currently underway in the Middle East.”
His source wrote:
Your lack of focus infuriates.
Benghazi is merely one of many plays within the entirety of the playbook itself. The hearings are largely for show and will remain so while the public suffers from its ongoing indifference regarding the matter.
It is to the language being used by John Kerry during his visit to the SCFR (Senate Committee on Foreign Relations) that should have had your full attention. The ISIL threat is nothing more than an ice cream machine spitting out from one end what has been added to the other. From where are those ingredients originating?
Mr. Kerry indicated as fact today that ISIL is, or was, al-Qaeda in Iraq. If so, why is no-one asking the current Secretary of State who was funding this earlier version of al-Qaeda in Iraq? Who was responsible for the killing of so many American soldiers?
Our media, yourself included, has done a deplorable job of explaining that ISIL is comprised primarily of Sunni Muslims, a group that accounts for less than 30% of Iraq’s total population. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, himself a Sunni, the Iraqi central government was turned over to the Shia majority. That majority, rightfully worried over a long ruling minority that found itself out of power, sought help from its Shia dominant neighbor, Iran, who was then only too happy to further its own influence in a country it had long been in opposition to.
Now think back over the last few years and how unwilling the Obama administration has been to punish Iran for its influence into Iraq. Do you recall how the president himself said nothing during the short lived Green Revolution in 2009 that challenged Iran’s power structure? And now do you see how this same Obama administration gives hints of cooperation with Iran in helping to find the ISIL threat?
Now you must turn to three other highly influential players in this purposely constructed, convoluted mess: Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Syria.
Saudi Arabia is over 80% Sunni, making it connected by religious interpretation at least, to ISIL and the Sunni minority in Iraq. Turkey is over 70% Sunni, also then linking itself ideologically to ISIL and finally, Syria is 75% Sunni as well. Three prominent Middle East nations and the world’s most powerful terrorist organization, all linked by shared Islamic interpretation.
But wait, you say, why then is ISIL and the Obama administration so intent on removing Bashar al-Assad from power if he is the ruler of Sunni-dominated Syria? To that I say exactly. Assad has long been viewed as a Muslim of convenience, far too westernized to be trusted, and in more recent years, he has voiced a willingness to lessen tensions between Syria and Israel. Those are the same statements that then marked him as a man in need of removal, seemingly marked by both Islamic fundamentalist groups like ISIL, and highly influential figures within the American White House. I would further elaborate on this by connecting Assad to Gaddafi. Like Assad, Gaddafi generated a great deal of mistrust and animosity among the Sunni majorities of their respective nations, and the ire of neighboring Sunni powers like Saudi Arabia.
I know you have admirably attempted to portray in your books the Saudis as masters of the geopolitical machine, but even your depictions fall short of just how insidious and deep their influence runs. They have tentacles growing from tentacles.
Were you aware of the public confrontation that took place between Gaddafi and the Saudi king? In that exchange, King Abdullah points to Gaddafi and declares “the lie is before you and the grave in front of you.”
Soon after, the grave truly was in front of Gaddafi, its creation no doubt made possible by Saudi funding and a quick to please its master, Obama administration.
And what groups now grow in power and influence in Libya as well? ISIL and other similarly focused Sunni dominated Islamic militant groups.
I must also add at this point that Barack Obama himself spent some of his most formative years raised in Indonesia, the single most populace Muslim nation in all the world, 99% of which are Sunni Muslim. His father’s family originates from Kenya, another nation with a Muslim population dominated by Sunnis. If that comes off too conspiratorial for you, I don’t apologize. Instead, I urge you to wake up even more than you already have. The real truth is there for those willing to take a moment to find it. 1+1 still equals 2, and Sunni + Sunni still equals Sunni.
I will apologize for the length of this message, though I hope what I have communicated to you is lessening the confusion over the current conflict in the Middle East. You should by now be wondering where that leaves Iran’s relationship to this White House. I have read your occasional reports pointing out the woman you call the de facto president and her Iranian birth (Valerie Jarrett). Would that make the Persian a Shia in conflict with the overwhelming evidence of an administration supporting the Sunni sphere of influence in the Middle East and the world?
To that I will say there is absolutely no conflict whatsoever. If you have not yet asked yourself what the Muslim Brotherhood is comprised of, ask now and I will answer it for you: Sunni. The Persian adviser and the Brotherhood are primarily of the same mind, as are the Brotherhood and their Saudi masters. The Saudis publicly proclaim animosity against the Brotherhood, but they are that group’s primary financial backers, with more recent support among the Saudis’ cousins the Qataris. Qatar, also Sunni dominated, is being utilized as the more public political front for the Saudis. The House of Saud, a term I know you to be so fond of using, are masters at distraction and deflection.
As for the Persian, she is far more an opportunist than religious advocate. She is above all things, a globalist, and more than willing to use chaos to further the goal of one over many. To do that, there must currently be a balance to the Saudi influence, and therein Iran and the resulting religious divide, serves its purpose. The Persian plays a very dangerous game, with implications far beyond any of our own remaining years, and the blood of billions in the balance.
After a while, one can only conclude that the best interests of the U.S. are not being served by Barack Obama.