REASSESSING THE BARILOCHE VISITMay 6, 2016
One of the most difficult things that confronts me when I sit down is not only making final selections from the vast amount of very provocative material and articles that people send me, but oftentimes, how to connect it all. Sometimes people send me their own analyses of events. This past two weeks has been such a flood of thought-provoking analysis and sharing of stories from readers here that I almost decided to start a whole new category of blogs here called the "grab bag", and simply list a bunch of articles, without much comment, that people had sent me.To put it plainly, I wish I had the time and energy to blog about all of it, because it is all worthy of attention. All I can say is, thank you, to everyone sending articles, analyses, and comments, for truly, it is all worthy of attention. But alas, I am only one person, a hack from South Dakota, and can only select from various stories.
Many of these articles had to do with Saudi Arabia, and the apparent implosion of the (out)House of Saud. For example, this article was sent by Ms. K.F., and its a stunner by any stretch of the imagination, for it details one aspect of what I and others have suspected, namely, that there is a very real internal and factional struggle taking place within the American military-intelligence ocmplex on what, if anything to do about, or do to, Saudi Arabia:
Bear this factional infighting scenario in mind.
Then there was this strange article in Reuters, detailing Saudi lobbying and influence peddling, shared by Mr. J.S.:
— Reuters (@Reuters) April 20, 2016
Additionally, I received many articles from readers about the possibility even of a joint Saudi-Israeli(!) military force, something that boggles the mind to be sure, but in these strange upside down days, it would seem that almost any high octane speculation can be floated without much accompanying fuss.
But the real kicker this week was an email, with the following two articles from Zero Hedge, from Mr. B. The context here is the recent spate of reports about that 289 page heavily redacted report made to the 9/11 commission about the Saudi role in funding terrorism and in the events of that day. While I wrote about this more completely in my most recent book Hidden Finance, Rogue Networks, and Secret Sorcery, the conentional wisdom is that this episode has to deal with Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia alone. As Ii make clear in the book, I do not think so. There are deeper players involved, but Mr. B presented an interesting high octanne speculation of his own, and I want to passs it along, because I am in substantiall agreement with it, and advanced a simillar scenario in that book. Here's the two articles from Zero Hedge in question:
Now Mr. B's high octane speculation, if I have understood it correctly, is based on careful consideration of the timeline of events and other stories that were occurring as the 9/11-Saudi bill was being debated in Congress: (1) the Panama papers story broke, (2) Mr. Obama made a state visit to Argentine, meeting with the Argentine president in San Carlos di Bariloche. (3) Mr. Obama returned to Washington, and made clear his opposition to the bill, and hence, to any examination in public of the Saudi role in 9/11. Again, conventional wisdom has it that what is being protected here is not only the Saudi role, but the close ties of the Shrubbery dynasty to the (out)house of Saud, or, as I put it in the recent book, there's Saudis in the Bushes.
But this, notes Mr. B(and as I and many others have noted) came after Mr. Obama's eye-opening interview in The Atlantic Monthly magazine, in which he questioned the whole "special relationship" with the odious and cruel (and hypocritical) regime of Riyadh. So, in view of this timeline of events, something happened between Mr. Obama's article, and his subsequent stonewalling of the bill to bring to light the Saudi role in 9/11, and that was, of course, his visit to Bariloche.
Now, for regular readers here and more importantly, for readers of my books, Bariloche is, of course, close to a postwar haven for what I have called "The Nazi International." In other words, what is being implied is that Mr. Obama "received instructions" in Bariloche, not to expose the Saudi role, because that would expose even deeper players in the events. Given what I uncovered in the book, this would not surprise me at all.
But viewed in the light of the first referenced article above concerning the implosion of the (out)house of Saud, the factional infighting which it suggests is taking place within the American military intelligence community, what one may also be looking at is a real power struggle between two groups, one with deep connection to the "veterans' group" in Bariloche, and one diametrically opposed to it. Add to this volatile high octane speculation mixture the divestiture of the Rockefeller interests in their petroleum stakes, their backing of odd fusion projects with their own odd little connections to goings-on in Patagonia, and one has quite a few broken eggs and a major omelette.
Will the Saudi role be exposed? I suspect that the real evidence in favor of this bizarre scenario is already there: the Saudi role is well-known and by any reading of the evidence, clear and palpable. It is already out there. What is being sought to be covered up is therefore something else.
See you on the flip side...