Posted by: quiscus | December 13, 2011

December 13, 2011

1. “Media Lies: Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad Sets ABC News Senior Propagandist Barbra Walters Straight.

With these facts in mind, viewers can fully appreciate the frothing duplicity, discourtesy, and intellectual depravity displayed by Barbra Walters who “saw pictures,” read a fraudulent UN report written by authors with ties to US corporate-financier interests, and listened to an Obama speech and therefore is an expert on the premeditated, US-facilitated chaos sweeping across parts of Syria. And even as she sits in Syria’s calm capital of Damascus, invited in by Assad who has been accused of barring foreign reporters (foreign journalist Dr. Webster Tarpley’s interview while in Syria can be found here), she still insists the nation is in utter chaos, irrationally closing itself off from the world, and with a population completely turned against the Syrian government.”

2. “Obama: I can’t comment on Wall Street prosecutions

So the White House, and the President himself, publicly harangued the DOJ for months not to prosecute Bush officials (once the damage was done and controversy erupted over the White House’s constant pressure on the “independent” DOJ, Obama cursorily acknowledged that it was a decision for the DOJ to make). Beyond that, the White House applied constant, intense political pressure on the Attorney General not to proceed with plans to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court. In April of this year, President Obama, while charges were pending, publicly decreed Bradley Manning guilty even though it is his direct military subordinates who will be judging Manning’s case, possibly jeopardizing that prosecution on the ground of undue command influence. And it was recently revealed that Obama officials are pressuring the New York State Attorney General to sign onto a full-scale settlement agreement with banks rather than continue to investigate Wall Street’s mortgage fraud. Even in this interview with Kroft, Obama observed from what he called “40,000 feet” that “some of the most damaging behavior on Wall Street, in some cases, some of the least ethical behavior on Wall Street, wasn’t illegal.”

Does this sound like a President who actually believes that it’s improper for him to “comment on the decisions about particular prosecutions” to ensure “there’s no political influence on decisions made by professional prosecutors”? Or does this sound like a President who applies exactly that kind of political pressure on the DOJ when it suits him, and is now cynically invoking this excuse to avoid having to take responsibility for the virtually full-scale immunity given to the financial-crisis-causing Wall Street criminals under his watch?”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: