Multiplying scandals to hide the scandal that could sink Obama

16/06/2013 03:38

by Jon Rappoport

June 15, 2013

The Matrix Revealed

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.

Read More

Please note : The content on this site does not always express the viewpoints of the site owner

Many topics are covered and links given, so that you can do your own research


FAIR USE NOTICE: These pages/video may contain copyrighted (© ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, Political, Human Rights, economic, scientific, Moral, Ethical, and Social Justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior general interest in receiving similar information for research and educational purposes.