Confidence men know that their victim — “the mark” as he has
been called — is eventually going to realize that he has been
cheated. But it makes a big difference whether he realizes it
immediately, and goes to the police, or realizes it after the
confidence man is long gone.
So part of the confidence racket is creating a period of
uncertainty, during which the victim is not yet sure of what is
happening. This delaying process has been called “cooling out the
mark.”
The same principle applies in politics. When the accusations
that led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton first
surfaced, he flatly denied them all. Then, as the months passed,
the truth came out — but slowly, bit by bit. One of Clinton’s own
White House aides later called it “telling the truth slowly.”
By the time the whole truth came out, it was called “old news,”
and the clever phrase now was that we should “move on.”
It was a successful “cooling out” of the public, keeping them in
uncertainty so long that, by the time the whole truth came out,
there was no longer the same outrage as if the truth had suddenly
come out all at once. Without the support of an outraged public,
the impeachment of President Clinton fizzled out in the Senate.
We are currently seeing another “cooling out” process, growing
out of the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi
on September 11th this year.
The belated release of State Department e-mails shows that the
Obama administration knew, while the attack on the American
consulate was still underway, that it was a coordinated, armed
terrorist attack. They were getting reports from those inside the
consulate who were under attack, as well as surveillance pictures
from a camera on an American drone overhead.
About an hour before the attack, the scene outside was calm
enough for the American ambassador to accompany a Turkish official
to the gates of the consulate to say goodbye. This could hardly
have happened if there were protesting mobs there.
Why then did both President Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice
keep repeating the story that this was a spontaneous protest riot
against an anti-Islamic video in America?
The White House knew the facts — but they knew that the voting
public did not. And it mattered hugely whether the facts became
known to the public before or after the election. What the White
House needed was a process of “cooling out” the voters, keeping
them distracted or in uncertainty as long as possible.
Not only did the Obama administration keep repeating the false
story about an anti-Islamic video being the cause of a riot that
turned violent, the man who produced that video was tracked down
and arrested, creating a media distraction.
All this kept the video story front and center, with the actions
and inactions of the Obama administration kept in the
background.
The White House had to know that it was only a matter of time
before the truth would come out. But time was what mattered, with
an election close at hand. The longer they could stretch out the
period of distraction and uncertainty — “cooling out” the voters
— the better. Once the confidence man in the White House was
reelected, it would be politically irrelevant what facts came
out.
As the Obama administration’s video story began to slowly
unravel, their earlier misstatements were blamed on “the fog of
war” that initially obscures many events. But there was no such
“fog of war” in this case. The Obama administration knew what was
happening while it was happening.
They didn’t know all the details — and we may never know all
the details — but they knew enough to know that this was no
protest demonstration that got out of hand.
From the time it took office, the Obama administration has
sought to suppress the very concept of a “war on terror” or the
terrorists’ war on us. The painful farce of calling the Fort Hood
murders “workplace violence,” instead of a terrorist attack in our
midst, shows how far the Obama administration would go to downplay
the dangers of Islamic extremist terrorism.
The killing of Osama bin Laden fed the pretense that the
terrorism threat had been beaten. But the terrorists’ attack in
Libya exposed that fraud — and required another fraud to try to
“cool out” the voters until after election day.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
