Multiplying scandals to hide the scandal that could sink Obama
by Jon Rappoport
June 15, 2013
Realize, first of all, that the normal attention span of elite media is about three days. If you can jam your version of data down their throats for that length of time, you’re golden.
Then you’re facing another three days. You start all over again.
You being the White House PR flack machine.
The overall effect you’re looking for is: here today, gone tomorrow (or in three days). Nothing sticks.
Therefore, the public, or that part of it that can still think and reflect at all, is yanked from one fragmentary story to another. Sooner or later, surrender comes.
“Do me. Give me your stories. I’ll buy them. Then I’ll forget them. Then I’ll buy the new ones.”
In this climate, there is no process that can be called reasoning. It doesn’t exist. It’s all about What’s New.
Fast&Furious? Old hat. Benghazi? He said-he said. Who cares? The Feds spying on AP reporters? A yawner.
No traction. That’s the goal of every modern White House press corps.
Of course, along come stories that can’t be slid out of the pan and tossed in the garbage. A war. A mass shooting in a school or a theater.
In that case, the White House quickly develops a message. The theme. The takeaway.
“What’s our agenda here? What do we want to leave people with?”
“Mental health. This Lanza kid was a nutjob. Therefore, America needs a better mental health system. The president will announce a new program to install community mental-health centers across the land.”
“And guns. The kid had access to his mother’s guns. Feeds into taking all the guns away. From everybody.”
White House PR flacks spread these messages to the press and enlist the help of Congresspeople to make supporting statements.
They invent reality for the masses.
Once in a while, a truly ugly scandal rears its head. If it isn’t cut off at the pass, it could damage the White House and take the president into a place he doesn’t want to inhabit. Benghazi, for example.
“Obama stood by and did nothing while Americans were murdered.” That story line has to be stopped.
So he-said he-said gets a heavy workout. Accusations and denials. The pile of nonsense that goes nowhere.
Then there is the suggestion of blame that should go elsewhere. The State Department. The CIA. Put them front and center and deflect responsibility away from the president. Try a presidential “I didn’t know what was going on.”
If all that doesn’t work, it’s a crisis. It might be time to introduce (leak) new scandals. A few of them. A traffic jam.
If this seems improbable and shocking, take a breath and consider that it’s in the age-old war playbook. Sacrifice a battle to win the war.
“We lose here to win there.”
Politicians who gain significant power don’t think like “good people.” They aren’t operating as the PR-fed media tells you they’re operating. They think like Sun Tzu and von Clausewitz.
“Pretend inferiority.” “All war is based on deception.” “When we are able to attack, we must seem unable.” “War is such a dangerous business that mistakes that come from kindness are the very worst.”
Presidents are at war. They’re at war from the moment they step into power. If they’re not, the people behind the curtain, who put the president into office, take up the slack and protect them.
Benghazi could torpedo Obama? Could take him down? The scandal is widening? It’s getting harder to contain? It’s rising to a roar?
Okay. Do the one thing that will appear to be completely counter-intuitive. Leak new scandals. Let a few dupes take the fall. Who cares?
Obscure Benghazi with new shocks. The AP scandal. The IRS scandal. The NSA-Snowden scandal. In each of those, Obama himself can survive. The damage he incurs is far less than what would happen if the Benghazi op explodes.
Aside from Americans being murdered at Benghazi, which is the emotional spark that could ignite the public, there is the matter of the White House and the Pentagon and the CIA arming the very terrorists who killed Christopher Stevens and the Seals. Arming them to make them into “heroic rebels” fighting against the Assad government in Syria.
Rahm Emanuel says, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” The spin off of that is: Expose new crises if you need them.
The media are ready, willing, and able to publicize the new crises. They live for them. Big stories. Commands don’t have to come down from the penthouse to editors and reporters. It’s an easy slam-dunk. Leak a new scandal, and the wolves of the press come to feed.
As you sit here reading this, do you know or remember exactly who first leaked the IRS and AP scandals to the press? And if you’re in the vast minority of people who think they remember, are you correct? Do you really know how the initial leak occurred and who it came from?
In the Snowden/NSA case, we presume it was Snowden himself who did the leaking, because, as an independent voice, he wanted to. He chose the moment to tell The Guardian and the Washington Post to move ahead and blow the whistle.
But, as I’ve argued in prior articles, it’s far more likely Snowden is an agent of forces who want to blast a hole in the NSA for their own un-altruistic reasons. Therefore, the timing of the NSA scandal, as a media story, would have been a choice Snowden’s handlers made.
In the Watergate myth, two rookie reporters for the Washington Post, following up on the Watergate break-in, caught a break. Woodward did. He “knew a guy.” The guy was standing in the shadows of a parking garage. He said, “This story is bigger than the break-in.” And Woodward and Bernstein were off and running.
Someone wanted that story to become a scandal, to take down Nixon. Deep Throat in the garage was fulfilling a higher purpose. I’ve written about this several times. Basically, David Rockefeller, who owned Nixon, was horrified that the president was laying tariffs on goods imported into the US.
It went directly against David’s prime Globalist strategy: “free trade.”
Rockefeller was the real leaker. He was the man who gave the green light to take down the crook, Nixon.
Take a president down. Protect a president. Either way, in times of crisis, the people in power do what’s necessary. They don’t care about Nice or Kind or Moral or Just. That’s fiction. That’s fairy tale.
The job of elite media is to believe and promote the idea that Nice and Kind and Moral and Just are the rule in political life, and scandal is the exception. That’s the myth for the kiddies.
The truth goes like this. “Okay, guys, we’re in the war room. We’ve got Benghazi. This is a bad one. Obama is exposed. His flank is unprotected. If we let this scandal play out, it’s going to drown the president. We can time a few new scandals so people will forget about Benghazi. Let’s bring them into play, one after the other. Hit them hard. Obama will weather the storm. Memory is short…”
Here’s what the National Journal reported on June 13:
“Obama’s job-approval ratings in the Gallup Poll have averaged between 47 percent and 51 percent each week since mid-February. This past week, June 3-9, his approval rating was 48 percent and his disapproval rating was 45 percent. All of the other major polls except for Fox News’s show essentially no change in his standing from a couple of months ago, before renewed attention to Benghazi, the Internal Revenue Service revelations, the Associated Press phone-records flap, and the recent leaks about the National Security Agency’s electronic-surveillance system.”
The president is, in fact, surviving the recent scandals. At least, that’s how the press and the pollsters are presenting it.
The op is working.
Is Obama taking hits? Of course. Has his credibility diminished? Yes. Will the recent scandals affect his ability to “get things done” in his second term? Yes.
But so far, the larger threat, Benghazi, has been deflected.
And the weakening of the dollar, the increasing of government debt, the economic devastation of the country, the true unemployment rate, the continuing war in Afghanistan, the stepping up of the Surveillance State, the militarization of police forces, the corporatizing of agriculture…and all the other crucial indicators of the decline of America as a modern Roman Empire are on track.
On track to what?
A Globalist planet.
A kingdom of controlled Earth, where all nations, including America, are brought down to a level of power that can managed from above.
Obama, like all recent Globalist presidents, is doing his assigned job. His number-one job. He’s winning the war as he sees it and as his controllers see it.
Benghazi? Go to startpage.com and search Sharyl Attkisson, who at the moment still works for CBS. From what I observe, she’s the only investigative reporter the major networks employ.
Her work is always under threat and censorship. She exposes a significant crime, and then she’s stopped. She’s been on to Benghazi.
So her work and home computers have been hacked. She implies it’s happening because of Benghazi.
The “war room” has been keeping track of what she knows.
In case you’re looking for a term to describe the leaking of multiple scandals to obscure one scandal, it’s “limited hangout.” That’s spy talk. It means you admit partial guilt. In doing so, you hide the deeper facts of a crime.
You hope the admission caps the story and nobody bothers to look further.
You hope the media-information pipeline into the skulls of millions of people shape what they think is possible and what is not possible in this thing called reality.
Yes, most people automatically reject the possibility that insiders would leak and time scandals to save themselves from the Big One. To admit the possibility is to realize that consensus reality is upside down and backwards.
Which it is.
“Okay, I can accept that politicians are lying about their role in a single scandal, but to think people would EXPOSE scandals IN A SEQUENCE to escape detection…that’s too much.”
The boys in the war room are counting on that reaction.
They’re imagining and sequencing reality for the masses, and they’re counting on the inability of the masses to imagine it’s even possible.