Only a Terror attack can save Obama

reply to post by The Vagabond


What about a lame duck opponent and a third party to split the vote?
would that work?

I think it would be very impressive for a third party to gain significant enough ballot access to tip the scales in anything but the closest of elections on such a short time table.

I do think one or both of the major parties may be forced to form a coalition with a new party or alliance of independents in order to achieve a majority in congress by 2016, and that if it comes to that soon after we may see a presidential election go to congress thanks to a third party presidential bid- all kinds of interesting coups are possible- but it takes a lot of time and effort to overcome the entrenchment the two parties (which they basically preserved for all time when they introduced the secret ballot system).

As for a lame duck saving Obama, I'm not sure I follow. Who has served two terms in the presidency who has any chance at all of somehow being nominated by the Republican Party?

I may be in the minority about this, but I think that any major disaster or act of terror to include nuclear attacks will do nothing for Obama.

As of late, Obama and others within his staff have proven over and over that they are in over their heads no matter what they say to the contrary.

Any disaster will only further prove just how incompetent Obama and his staff are and any real act of terror or war involving nuclear weapons will only prove to America once and for all that Obama was not up to the challenge.

In fact, I fear that an enemy of formidable capabilities will attack America and while the attack is not what fears me, it is the fact that I see Obama being such a weakling in matters of war that he will end up losing, capitulating and surrendering our nation unconditionally to some nation that just kicked our butts. Imagine if you will America like Germany after the war with foreign armies located all over the country and based within our nation to keep us in line and to continue getting rid of the useless eaters.

If anyone thinks that a war or act of terror is going to make Obama look like a leader is deluded. Those that support and brief Obama should continue to sell their lies. It will ensure that our pain is ended and it will prove that in any war, with Obama at the helm, we are not only subject to losing, we are subject to annihilation and then surrendering to some foreign power like China and Russia or some other coalition of nations states intent on destroying America and taking over what was once the great nation state of America.

Those are my thoughts on the subject. War or no war. Terror or no terror, Obama nor his staff will be able to put humpty dumpty America together again after Obama proves just how right I am and destroys us with his incompetence.

Any major crisis is going to have all the arm chair generals that have never served in the military thumping their feet. Most if not all have never had to do anything meaningful, these are the types that are going to prove that no one in the Obama regime to include Obama has enough leadership or moral courage to be the leader we as a nation need.

We are currently leaderless and with such a leader like Obama at the helm, he will lead us to our deaths and will surrender this nation like some little wimp dropping a hot poker iron at the first sign of discomfort.

Obama doesn't play poker and has no clue what he is doing. If he were truly a honest leader, he would step down because he is over his head and all the lying pundits only make it worse.

Obama is no leader and he is no warrior. His faith is non existent and the only thing that matters to Obama if such surrender were to occur, you can bet Obama and other losers will be asking for some nation to allow him and his blood billions in blood money to host his vacation from America while we the nation get fed to the death camps and ovens.

To think that Obama would suffer a Nuremberg type trial and or some military hanging or firing squad is a fleeting dream. We all know people like Obama don't have to be accountable for his actions. Only American citizens are accountable. Go figure.

Anyway there you have it. My fear that our nation will be surrendered by a coward and a weakling who would rather walk his poodle and hang out at the bath houses. What a leader. What a joke. What a liability to this nation.

The only hope and change I believe in is in getting rid of Obama.

reply to post by The Vagabond

I agree going to war to win with Obama at the helm would be a disaster for the US and its allies.
I'm actually thinking destroying America IS the agenda the globalists are running.

perhaps I used the wrong term...Lame duck
I meant a candidate who couldn't possibly even beat Obama or a candidate who could be comprimised at the last minute...leaving no choice.

As to the false flag here is a little on Korea:

Doubts surface on North Korea's role in ship sinking
Some in South Korea dispute the official version of events: that a North Korean torpedo ripped apart the Cheonan.

But challenges to the official version of events are coming from an unlikely place — within South Korea itself.
The critics, mostly but not all from the opposition, say it is unlikely that the impoverished North Korean regime could have pulled off a perfectly executed hit against a superior military power, sneaking a submarine into the area and slipping away without detection. They also wonder whether the evidence of a torpedo attack was misinterpreted, or even fabricated.

"I couldn't find the slightest sign of an explosion," said Shin Sang-chul, a former shipbuilding executive-turned-investigative journalist. "The sailors drowned to death. Their bodies were clean. We didn't even find dead fish in the sea."

Shin, who was appointed to the joint investigative panel by the opposition Democratic Party, inspected the damaged ship with other experts April 30. He was removed from the panel shortly afterward, he says, because he had voiced a contrary opinion: that the Cheonan hit ground in the shallow waters off the Korean peninsula and then damaged its hull trying to get off a reef.

"It was the equivalent of a simple traffic accident at sea," Shin said.

www.latimes.com...

I have been saying this all along:
The south Korean press have been saying this from the beginnig.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This along with the US intelligence community saying Iran abandoned its Nuclear weapons program in 2003, and the revelations the US have been committing covert actions in Iran for years...

The US tried to execute coup on Chavez
now you have a bunch of US ships sitting next door in Costa Rica.
and all the troops on the border with Columbia

The german PM resinigned becaus he let slip the war in afgahnistan
was economic in origin...

the deputy PM in britain the other day,,Iraq was an illegal war

Just on and on...
Like one of those group Mexican stand offs in a Desparado movie.

False flag seems to be the only card in this deck.







[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


I think a false flag operation by Obama administration would have the opposite effect i think it would tear apart his administration.It would effectively destroy his foreign policy and prove hes taken the wrong tactics handling world events.

reply to post by dragonridr

I think a false flag operation by Obama administration would have the opposite effect i think it would tear apart his administration.It would effectively destroy his foreign policy and prove hes taken the wrong tactics handling world events.

I don't disagree with that... I can't see him surviving honestly myself.
If they went into a martial law / figure head scenario or a rigged election are the ways I see him surviving...

As i said in the OP my question being will they resort to a false flag to start a war, which leaves the secondary question...with Obama as in the quote, or with a new prezident...Bidan doesn't seem like the guy either...

Do they have the time to wait for an election?




[edit on 23-7-2010 by Danbones]

reply to post by Danbones


Since our primaries aren't all on the same day, there isn't so much chance of an "oops" there. If someone nobody wants to actually see as president does too well because of frustration or protest votes, the people in the remaining primaries can pull back.
That leaves us with the possibility that either a major political party is so grossly out of touch that it will simply commit suicide, or that something underhanded or just really stupid will be done that destroys a candidate on the eve of the election. You can never bet against that in American politics. In fact I just had a feeling it would happen to Edwards in 08 and it did.


That answer above- politics as usual- makes more sense than a false flag op. A power grab by Obama is too risky. The Powers That Be would risk bringing to a head a revolution that will otherwise never come soon enough to matter And Obama himself would risk incredible damage to the cause of civil rights, among other things.

I believe that a power grab by any perceived liberal creates an opening for realpolitik between more-or-less mainstream conservatives who are currently embracing revolutionary motifs and more dangerous fringe elements like those that gave us home grown terrorists in the 1990s. Depending on the exact situation, this could result in anything from a few more or less random acts of violence to a coordinated terror campaign which actually breaks the power of the federal government to exercise authority over a certain portion of the US.


If you stop short of a power grab and entertain the idea of an attack just for a boost in support for the election, I think Obama doesn't gain much. I don't see how a nation desensitized by over a decade of continuous war (as of 2012) could rally around the leader after another attack, particularly when the leader isn't much of a hawk. I think he gets a small bump if he handles it brilliantly, otherwise it just invites a lot of second guessing.

reply to post by The Vagabond

What you are saying does make a lot of sense...
I still wonder why all the questioable foreign policy posturing when a proper president would be working for, like you mentioned earlier, a financial resurrection.

I view the whole situation as similar to Iraq in the mid 90s. They aren't gong to strike first, and we have no compelling motive to go to all the trouble it would take to strike first at them. Of course in Iraq there were occasional strikes in the no fly zones which can be analogized to various little scrapes with North Korea. It just wont come to a head.

Like Iraq in the 90s, the DPRK can be an annoyance or a welcome distraction. Sometimes they force a president to pay attention to a situation he already knows he doesn't intend to do anything about if he can avoid it. Then other times they take up news time that would otherwise be used to cover already on-going wars, oil spills and economic depressions in greater depth.

I believe that when the DPRK failed to honor its agreements with Clinton the conventional wisdom in American politics became that dealing with North Korea above the table is bad for your career. I think that the US Government will deal unofficially with North Korea through people like Bill Clinton until Kim Jong Il is dead, and depending on the internal climate in the DPRK, probably attempt to establish diplomatic relations with his successor. (This is based on the assumption that Kim is being particularly difficult because he is trying to secure his dynasty).

So we can't be completely disinterested in them, but we aren't that interested in them. I think you chose the right word: posturing.