August 27, 2013
With the assistance of former PLO member and native Arabic-speaker Walid Shoebat, WND has assembled evidence from various Middle Eastern sources that cast doubt on Obama administration claims the Assad government is responsible for last week’s attack.
A video posted on YouTube, embedded below, shows Free Syrian Army, or FSA, rebel forces launching a Sarin gas attack on a Syrian village.
Another video posted on YouTube shows what appears to be Syrian rebel forces loading a canister of nerve gas on a rocket to fire presumably at civilians and possibly government forces.
As seen below, a screen capture from the video shows rebel civilian forces placing a suspicious blue canister on top of a rocket-launching device.
A separate YouTube video from Syrian television shows a government-captured arsenal of what appears to be nerve gas weapons seized from a rebel stronghold in Jobar, Syria.
The image below shows canisters in the seized rebel arsenal from Jobar that appear to resemble the canister launched by rebel forces in the first image above.
Syrian TV news report of rebel weapons seized in Jobar, Syria
A close-up from the Syrian television news report, seen below, shows a chemical agent identified as having been made by a “Saudi factory.”
Syrian TV news report showing chemical agents identified as manufactured in Saudi Arabia
A report from the Russian Arabic-language channel RT Arabic shows captured rebel arsenals apparently with chemical agents manufactured in Saudi Arabia and gas masks, supporting Russian claims that the rebels are the culprits in the alleged chemical attack.
On Aug. 23, LiveLeak.com hosted an audio recording of a phone call broadcast on Syrian TV between a terrorist affiliated with the rebel civilian militia “Shuhada al-Bayada Battalion” in Homs, Syria, and his Saudi Arabian boss, identified as “Abulbasit.” The phone call indicates rebel-affiliated terrorists in Syria, not the Assad government, launched the chemical weapons attack in Deir Ballba in the Homs, Syria, countryside.
The terrorist said his group, which comprises 200 terrorists escaped from al-Bayadah to al-Daar al-Kabera through a tunnel, needed to buy weapons to attack Homs.
The Saudi financier, who was in Cairo, asked the Syrian terrorists to give details about his group and how it will receive the money. The Saudi admitted his support to terrorists in Daraa and the Damascus countryside. The Syrian terrorist told him that one of the achievements of his “battalion” was the use of chemical weapons in Deir Ballba.
The recorded phone call disclosed the cooperation between two terrorist groups in Syria to bring two bottles of Sarin Gas from the Barzeh neighborhood in Damascus.
Russian media sources have consistently reported Syrian military have discovered rebel warehouses containing chemical weapons agents and have documented rebel chemical weapons attacks on the Syrian civilians the military.
August 27, 2013
The fix is in.
The Wall Street Journal reports:
“The [weapons inspection] team must be able to conduct a full, thorough and unimpeded investigation,” said U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on Sunday night. However, the team is only mandated to determine if chemical weapons were used, not who used them, Mr. Ban’s spokesman said.
In other words, even if it was the rebels who carried out the attack, it will still be used as an excuse to attack the government.
The fix is in … the U.S. will get the war it planned 20 years ago.
Neoconservatives Planned Regime Change Throughout the Middle East and North Africa 20 Years Ago
Iraq ☑ Libya ☑ … Syria ☐ Lebanon ☐ Somalia ☐ Sudan ☐ Iran ☐
I’ve repeatedly documented that the Neocons planned regime change in Iraq, Libya, Iran, Syria and a host of other countries right after 9/11 … if not before.
And that Obama is implementing these same plans – just with a “kindler, gentler” face.
Glenn Greenwald provides further documentation that the various Middle Eastern and North African wars were planned before 9/11:
General Wesley Clark … said the aim of this plot [to "destroy the governments in … Iraq, … Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran”] was this: “They wanted us to destabilize the Middle East, turn it upside down, make it under our control.” He then recounted a conversation he had had ten years earlier with Paul Wolfowitz — back in1991 — in which the then-number-3-Pentagon-official, after criticizing Bush 41 for not toppling Saddam, told Clark: “But one thing we did learn [from the Persian Gulf War] is that we can use our military in the region – in the Middle East – and the Soviets won’t stop us. And we’ve got about 5 or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet regimes – Syria, Iran [sic], Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us.” Clark said he was shocked by Wolfowitz’s desires because, as Clark put it: “the purpose of the military is to start wars and change governments? It’s not to deter conflicts?”
[I]n the aftermath of military-caused regime change in Iraq and Libya … with concerted regime change efforts now underway aimed at Syria and Iran, with active andescalating proxy fighting in Somalia, with a modest military deployment to SouthSudan, and the active use of drones in six — count ‘em: six — different Muslim countries, it is worth asking whether the neocon dream as laid out by Clark is dead or is being actively pursued and fulfilled, albeit with means more subtle and multilateral than full-on military invasions (it’s worth remembering that neocons specialized in dressing up their wars in humanitarian packaging: Saddam’s rape rooms! Gassed his own people!). As Jonathan Schwarz … put it about the supposedly contentious national security factions:
As far as I can tell, there’s barely any difference in goals within the foreign policy establishment. They just disagree on the best methods to achieve the goals. My guess is that everyone agrees we have to continue defending the mideast from outside interference (I love that Hillary line), and the [Democrats] just think that best path is four overt wars and three covert actions, while the neocons want to jump straight to seven wars.
The neocon end as Clark reported them — regime change in those seven countries — seems as vibrant as ever. It’s just striking to listen to Clark describe those 7 countries in which the neocons plotted to have regime change back in 2001, and then compare that to what the U.S. Government did and continues to do since then with regard to those precise countries.
Note: The so-called “war on terror” has also weakened our national security and created many more terrorists than it has killed, imprisoned or otherwise stopped. It is also destroying our economy.
August 27, 2013
We noted last month that Congress is less popular than North Korea, cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen, Genghis Khan, Communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill, Nixon during Watergate or King George during the American Revolution.
The Washington Post notes today that a Syria intervention is less popular than Congress. So that means that the American people would much rather get a root canal or a colonoscopy than bomb Syria.
Indeed, while John Kerry announced today that the Syrian government used chemical weapons, Reuters noted:
The polls suggest that so far, the growing crisis in Syria, and the emotionally wrenching pictures from an alleged chemical attack in a Damascus suburb this week, may actually be hardening many Americans’ resolve not to get involved in another conflict in the Middle East.
The bottom line is that Americans are sick of war.
August 27, 2013
Remember what the 2012 leaked Stratfor memo said about the focal point of western airborne power? Here it is again: “Syrian air defenses are a lot more robust and are much denser, esp around Damascus and on the borders with Israel, Turkey. THey are most worried about mobile air defenses, particularly the SA-17s that they’ve been getting recently. It’s still a doable mission, it’s just not an easy one. The main base they would use is Cyprus, hands down. Brits and FRench would fly out of there. They kept stressing how much is stored at Cyprus and how much recce comes out of there. The group was split on whether Turkey would be involved, but said Turkey would be pretty critical to the mission to base stuff out of there. EVen if Turkey had a poltiical problem with Cyprus, they said there is no way the Brits and the FRench wouldn’t use Cyprus as their main air force base.” (sic) Well, it has begun. Guardian reports that “Warplanes and military transporters have begun arriving at Britain’s Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, less than 100 miles from the Syrian coast, in a sign of increasing preparations for a military strike against the Assad regime in Syria.”
From the Guardian:
Two commercial pilots who regularly fly from Larnaca on Monday told the Guardian that they had seen C-130 transport planes from their cockpit windows as well as small formations of fighter jets on their radar screens, which they believe had flown from Europe.
Residents near the British airfield, a sovereign base since 1960, also say activity there has been much higher than normal over the past 48 hours.
If an order to attack targets in Syria is given, Cyprus is likely to be a hub of the air campaign. The arrival of warplanes suggests that advanced readiness – at the very least – has been ordered by Whitehall as David Cameron, Barack Obama and European leaders step up their rhetoric against Bashar al-Assad, whose armed forces they accuse of carrying out the chemical weapons attack last Wednesday that killed many hundreds in eastern Damascus.
More on Akrotiri airbase from wikipedia:
Akrotiri has played a crucial role during Britain’s recent operations in the Middle East. During both major campaigns against Iraq, in 1991 and 2003, and also during the no-fly zone operations between, it operated as a staging post for British forces en-route to the region.
A constant problem of airfields located outside the territory of the country whose forces are based there is that of overflight rights. The UK has a treaty with Cyprus that guarantees British access to Akrotiri in any circumstances. Under the treaty, the stations employ many locals and contribute to the local economy.
A sizeable over-the-horizon radar antenna was erected within the base raising concern for the effect on local wildlife and on the health of people living in nearby Limassol. Several demonstrations and protests took place, with most memorable incident the act of MP (MEP since 2004) Marios Matsakis to chain himself on the antenna. Amateur radio operators report that the radar is causing interference in bands allocated for amateur radio use by the ITU. From the international amateur radio union region 1 monitoring system news letter (April 2002): The lowest frequency was 18000 kHz, the highest frequency so far during the current solar cycle is 30500 kHz. The bandwidth is normally 50 to 60 kHz, the signal strength S9 + 70 dB thus causing very harmful interference to the Amateur Radio Service.
Akrotiri was also the location of the main transmitter of the well known numbers station, the Lincolnshire Poacher, although transmissions ceased in 2008. Akrotiri is also the location of the Limassol BBC Relay that broadcast the BBC World Service radio signal to the Middle East.
Due to the station’s relative proximity to the Middle East, it is often used by British allies when needed, such as for casualty reception for Americans after the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing and as a staging post before heading into theatres of combat in the Middle East/Persian Gulf theaters.
The U-2s of the 9th Reconnaissance Wing were used in Operation Cedar Sweep to fly surveillance over Lebanon, relaying information about Hezbollah militants to Lebanese authorities, and in Operation Highland Warrior to fly surveillance over Turkey and northern Iraq to relay information to Turkish authorities. These flights were the topic of acrimonious diplomatic cables between British officials and the American embassy, later leaked by Wikileaks, with David Miliband saying that “policymakers needed to get control of the military”. The British were concerned that the flights over Lebanon were authorised by the Lebanese Ministry of Defence rather than the entire cabinet, and that the intelligence so gained could lead to the UK being complicit in the unlawful torture of detainees. After warnings that these issues “could jeopardize future use of British territory”, John Rood, a senior Bush administration official, and Mariot Leslie, the Foreign Office’s director general for defence and intelligence, became involved. Leslie said that the U.S. was not actually expected to check on detained terrorists, but that future spy missions would require full written applications.
In July 2006 RAF Akrotiri played a major role as a transit point for personnel evacuations out of Lebanon during the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict (see International reactions to the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict and Joint Task Force Lebanon).
In March 2011, the station was used as a staging base for support aircraft involved in Operation Ellamy. Tanker support and logistical units were based here to support aerial operations over Libya.
Akrotiri is also the winter training grounds of the RAF display team, the Red Arrows.
The station hosts the main hospital for British Forces Cyprus, The Princess Mary’s Hospital (TPMH), located on Cape Zevgari.
Now: about those Russian warships – are they still parked in Cyprus?
in a historic event, the Russian Pacific fleet, for the first time in decades, crossed the Suez Canal and entered the Mediterranean, direction Cyprus’ port of Limasol (hi Cyprus – Russia will be arriving shortly) in what is now the loudest implied warning to the US and Israel amassing military units across Syria’s border that Russia will not stand idly by as Syria is used by the Israeli “Defense” Forces for target practice. “The task force has successfully passed through the Suez Channel and entered the Mediterranean. It is the first time in decades that Pacific Fleet warships enter this region,” Capt. First Rank Roman Martov said. This is what is also known as dropping hints, loud and clear.
The group, including the destroyer Admiral Panteleyev, the amphibious warfare ships Peresvet and Admiral Nevelskoi, the tanker Pechenga and the salvage/rescue tug Fotiy Krylov left the port of Vladivostok on March 19 to join Russia’s Mediterranean task force.
Admiral Panteleyev destroyer
The task force currently includes the large anti-submarine ship Severomorsk, the frigate Yaroslav Mudry, the salvage/rescue tugs Altai and SB-921 and the tanker Lena from the Northern and Baltic Fleets, as well as the Ropucha-II Class landing ship Azov from the Black Sea Fleet. The task force may be enlarged to include nuclear submarines, Navy Commander Admiral Viktor Chirkov said last Sunday.
Shore leave for a whole lot of submarines just a few hundred kilometers from Syria? Surely. From Rian.
“The task force has successfully passed through the Suez Channel and entered the Mediterranean. It is the first time in decades that Pacific Fleet warships enter this region,” Capt. First Rank Roman Martov said.
The Defense Ministry said in April Russia has begun setting up a naval task force in the Mediterranean, sending several warships from the Pacific Fleet to the region. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said in March a permanent naval task force in the Mediterranean was needed to defend Russia’s interests in the region.
A senior Defense Ministry official said the Mediterranean task force’s command and control agencies will be based either in Novorossiysk, Russia, or in Sevastopol, Ukraine.
Admiral Vladimir Komoyedov, head of the parliamentary defense committee, previously told RIA Novosti that the Mediterranean task force should be comprised of 10 warships and support vessels as part of several tactical groups tasked with attack, antisubmarine warfare and minesweeping.
The Soviet Union maintained its 5th Mediterranean Squadron from 1967 until 1992. It was formed to counter the US Navy’s 6th Fleet during the Cold War, and consisted of 30-50 warships and auxiliary vessels.
It appears that the squadron is being reincarnated and quite rapidly at that.
It also appears that the two key naval forces in the Mediterranean are finally starting to position themselves for what may soon be a face off.
Decision to attack Syria already made over a year ago
Paul Joseph Watson
August 27, 2013
Desperate to maintain a narrative that will justify a cruise missile attack on Syria, the Obama administration is seemingly trying everything within its power to sabotage the UN chemical weapons investigation in Syria.
The reason is obvious – the last time the United Nations investigated claims of chemical weapons use in Syria, its inspectors concluded that it was the rebels and not Assad’s forces who were likely behind the sarin gas attack.
Eager to avoid a repeat that would completely derail the march to war, the White House in concert with Britain has repeatedly attempted to scupper the UN investigation or render it meaningless.
In the latest example, the Wall Street Journal reports that the Obama administration told UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon that “there wasn’t adequate security for the U.N. inspectors to visit the affected areas to conduct their mission,” a clear warning (or a blatant threat) that inspectors should pull out entirely.
It was announced today that inspectors had postponed their work until Wednesday for “safety” reasons.
This warning followed an incident, almost certainly the work of US-backed rebels, where a convoy of UN vehicles was fired upon by a sniper, causing the inspectors to temporarily suspend their work. Rebels have repeatedly acted with hostility against UN workers and peacekeepers, with one FSA group kidnapping 21 peacekeepers back in March.
While discouraging the UN from completing its investigation, the US and Britain have already declared that last week’s attack involved the use of chemical weapons and that it was the work of Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, despite numerous other examples where rebels have prepared and used chemical weapons themselves.
Even when Syria allowed UN inspectors to enter the affected region, the Obama administration responded that it was “too late,” and that the evidence could have been destroyed – so why bother investigating at all?
Washington and Downing Street are preparing to dive headlong into another potentially catastrophic war in the Middle East based on the evidence of a collection of YouTube videos. As in Iraq, it doesn’t really matter how flimsy the actual justification is because the decision to attack Syria was already made over a year ago, with a hyped humanitarian crisis being the agreed upon pretext, and the intervening period was merely an exercise in manufacturing a casus belli.
Why is the Obama administration and the British government so keen to prevent or dismiss as irrelevant the UN’s investigation?
The only reason is that it would threaten the already agreed upon narrative that Bashar Al-Assad, in complete defiance of any logic, ordered a chemical weapons attack right when UN inspectors were already in the country, timing the attack at the most opportune moment to justify western military intervention.
With western warplanes now already in place in Cyprus, along with a number of warships at sea, the die has been cast and the UN chemical weapons investigation will continue to be sabotaged or simply ignored, lest it turn up evidence that contradicts the rush to war.
“Boots on the ground” only effective way to remove Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria
August 27, 2013
Cruise missiles fired from Navy destroyers deployed in the Mediterranean Sea will not break the resolve of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad or significantly hobble his military.
Defense officials told the Washington Post late last week that a destroyer scheduled to leave the Mediterranean was kept in place to keep more resources in the area. As noted in the above video, other assets are being positioned.
On Sunday, Sen. Bob Corker, who was briefed by Obama administration officials over the weekend, said a “response is imminent” in Syria. “I think we will respond in a surgical way,” he explained.
During a news conference on Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry set the stage for an attack.
A cruise missile attack, however, short of more robust military action will undoubtedly fail, according to Chris Harmer, a senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War.
In July, Harmer wrote a study pointing out how the U.S. could degrade key Syrian military installations with virtually no risk to U.S. personnel, reports John Hudson for Foreign Policy. One aspect of the report suggested TJAM, or Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles, attacks pinpointed against the al-Assad regime. “It could be done quickly, easily, with no risk whatsoever to American personnel, and a relatively minor cost,” said Harmer.
The report was embraced by Arizona Senator John McCain.
In July, McCain cited Harmer’s report. “For a serious accounting of a realistic limited military option in Syria, I would strongly recommend a new study that is being released today by the Institute for the Study of War,” said McCain. “This new study confirms what I and many others have long argued: That it is militarily feasible for the United States and our friends and allies to significantly degrade Assad’s air power at relatively low cost, low risk to our personnel, and in very short order.”
“I never intended my analysis of a cruise missile strike option to be advocacy even though some people took it as that,” Harmer told Foreign Policy. “I made it clear that this is a low cost option, but the broader issue is that low cost options don’t do any good unless they are tied to strategic priorities and objectives,” he explained. “Any ship officer can launch 30 or 40 Tomahawks. It’s not difficult. The difficulty is explaining to strategic planners how this advances U.S. interests.”
“Punitive action is the dumbest of all actions,” he said. “The Assad regime has shown an incredible capacity to endure pain and I don’t think we have the stomach to deploy enough punitive action that would serve as a deterrent.”
In March, Joseph Halliday, a senior analyst for the Institute for the Study of War, produced a comprehensive comparative report on the strategy and capabilities of the Syrian army under both the current president Bashar al-Assad and his father and predecessor, Hafez al-Assad.
Halliday concluded that although the CIA’s mercenaries led by the al-Nusra Front and al-Qaeda had taken an appreciable toll of al-Assad’s military, it remains largely intact. A reorganization of loyalist brigades and dependence on irregular army militias have kept the armed forces loyal, writes Lauren Williams for The Daily Star. The report concludes that al-Assad is increasingly dependent on core trusted units to control all of the country.
Although suffering from a high rate of defection, between 55,000-75,000 troops have been reorganized into loyalist units and deployed strategically under the command of trusted elite unit commanders.
“There has been significant reorganization of the deployable units. They have taken the most trusted soldiers out of the conventional battalions,” Holliday told The Daily Star.
“The vast majority of the commanding officers are Alawites, or those in leadership positions have close ties to the regime through family ties or commercial interests. This is true even at division commander level,” Holliday noted.
The Syrian Army employs fear and intimidation to reduce defections. “Loyalist gangs, usually made up of Alawites, and locally coordinated loyalist forces under the name of the Popular Committees, mostly organized along the lines of other minority sects, have been used as an important bolster to army units,” writes Williams.
“There are the shabbiha, Alawite gangs extended to members of the Assad family, or those from, say, slums in mixed areas made up of loyalist gangs who are not Alawite and often responsible for the worst kind of brutality,” Halliday explained.
In June, following a long stalemate, the tide turned against the CIA’s rebels in Syria. Following the loss of the key strategic city of Qusair on the Lebanese border, the rebels, propped up by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, suffered a serious setback.
“Bolstered by his Iranian and Russian backers, Assad’s forces have launched a series of counter-offensives in recent weeks against mainly Sunni Muslim rebels battling to overthrow him and end his minority Alawite family’s four-decade grip on power,” Reuters reported on June 5.
Cruise missile attacks are not likely to reverse this dynamic. If the United States is serious about toppling the al-Assad regime, it will be necessary to deploy “boots on the ground” as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan, an option the Obama administration and the Pentagon have ruled out.
“Nobody has asked us to [go into Syria]. The Syrian opposition does not think that it’s a good idea,” Ben Rhodes, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communication, said in June. “We certainly don’t think it’s in our national interest to send U.S. Troops.”
The neocons in Congress, however, understand that deploying troops inside Syria will be the only effective way to take out al-Assad under the WMD guise. In March, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said troops must be sent into Syria to secure its chemical weapons.
“Absolutely, you’ve got to get on the ground,” Graham said. “There is no substitute for securing these weapons. I don’t care what it takes.”
“Look, there is no way that any strikes inside Syria would be easy to accomplish and they could potentially drag us much deeper into the conflict than we would like, but it is also true that the military is war-weary and is facing budgetary uncertainties,” said Michael P. Noonan, the Director of the Program on National Security at the Foreign Policy Research Institute in Philadelphia, after Kerry proposed a “surgical strike option” in April.
Kerry’s proposal was shot down by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Three times more Americans supported US involvement in Vietnam at war’s lowest ebb
Paul Joseph Watson
August 27, 2013
Image: Wikimedia Commons
Support for an attack on Syria amongst Americans is more than three times lower than support for US involvement in Vietnam at the very lowest ebb of the war, illustrating how universally unpopular such a move would be despite the media claiming Obama would “lose credibility” if he does not launch a military assault.
Chickenhawk politicians and the corporate press have repeatedly floated the talking point that Obama must follow through on his “red line” threat in order to save face and rescue credibility. Credibility with whom? Certainly not the American people – only 9 per cent of which support intervention in Syria according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
If Obama got the United States embroiled in a conflict with Syria, it would be the least popular war in the history of the country.
Even at its most dire point in May 1971, 28 per cent of the American people still thought it was the right decision to send troops into Vietnam.
Despite the predictable hellhole it later turned into, Obama’s intervention in Libya was supported by a comparatively huge 47 per cent of Americans back in 2011, while 76 per cent initially supported the invasion of Iraq and 90 per cent backed the assault on Afghanistan.
As Washington’s Blog highlights, other things that Americans find more appealing than attacking Syria include “North Korea, cockroaches, lice, root canals, colonoscopies, traffic jams, used car salesmen, Genghis Khan, Communism, BP during the Gulf oil spill, Nixon during Watergate or King George during the American Revolution.”
Even Congress with its 15 per cent approval rating is almost twice as popular as the notion of attacking Syria.
With missile strikes set to be launched as early as Thursday, it seems the only “credibility” the Obama administration is concerned about retaining is their credibility with the military-industrial complex, which is about to lead America into yet another ludicrous, dangerous and unaffordable conflict which will empower Al-Qaeda led terrorists in seizing control of a major middle eastern country.
Forget claims about chemical weapons attacks, Syria has been targeted for annihilation for at least 12 years. As General Wesley Clark explains in the clip below, the Pentagon put the country on a list of seven nations destined for destruction in the weeks after 9/11.
This is why the White House couldn’t care less about the fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose intervention – the fix is already in.
Miley distraction predominates as the elite prepare to decimate Syria.
August 27, 2013
Is it a coincidence that the establishment’s “entertainment” media has dwelled on the girl-next-door suddenly transformed into a grotesque slut as the Obama administration prepares the wallop Syria with cruise missiles?
Corporate media ramps up hype ahead of attack.
Following a speech by blue blood Skull and Bones member and current Secretary of State, John Kerry, on Monday setting the stage for an attack, the corporate media is now reporting that an attack may arrive Thursday.
No doubt the Miley-turned-into-pole-dancer meme will still be going strong in three days and distracting millions of Americans as the missiles fly in Damascus with the inevitable “collateral damage” of men, women and children who have nothing to do with al-Assad or the political prerogatives of the global elite.
On Monday, a new Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that a scant 9 percent of respondents approve of the Obama administration attacking Syria. Even approval of Congress ranks higher at 15 percent approval, according to the Washington Post.
Max Fisher, writing for the former crown jewel of the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, seems to be as clueless as the rest of the establishment media: “The calculus for and against is complicated enough in foreign policy terms. But the White House is also a political institution, and it will surely keep the domestic politics, which appear to oppose any intervention very strongly, well in mind,” he writes.
In fact, as should be obvious, most of all to those who claim to cover politics in the district of criminals, the White House does not give a whit about “domestic politics” or what the American people think. The White House, after all, is a puppet stage where marionettes posing as esteemed leaders and their over-paid adjutants read from prepared scripts.
Blue blood Kerry’s scripted speech delivered yesterday from the State Department, just down the street from the Council on Foreign Relations (as former Sec. of State Clinton fawningly admitted in 2009), and for good reason, is a primary example of this sort of tedious choreography. Kerry made effusive reference to the children killed in a chemical attack he explicitly blamed on Bashar al-Assad (minus any evidence, never mind compelling evidence) while, of course, steering away from the obvious: cruise missiles, fired willy-nilly into populated urban areas like Damascus, will kill many more innocent children.
If America is, as our appointed leaders and their stage handlers repeatedly tell us, a “representative democracy” (as opposed to a constitutional republic, as the founders designed), then all Americans will once again have the blood of innocents on their hands in much the same way the German people had blood on their hands after Hitler and his Wall Street financed henchmen finished killing millions (a track record exceeded only by the psychopaths Josef Stalin and Mao Tse-tung).
Of course, America is not a democracy or a republic. It is a fascist police state, albeit soft at this juncture in history. It is a plutocracy ruled for and by a small number of international bankers and transnational corporations.
If Syria ends up a smoking ruin, its civilian infrastructure destroyed and population poisoned by depleted uranium, it will be a criminal act completely beyond not only the control of the average American, but his and her comprehension as well.
Polls aside, most Americans have but the slightest inkling of what the corporate-bankster state and its military machine do, as evidenced by Iraq. It is not a subject of documentaries broadcast on CNN, Fox News, or the other Mockingbird alphabet news conglomerates. Reality and dead babies, especially when numbered in the hundreds of thousands, are now routinely papered over.
Instead, we are distracted by a 20-year old woman, a corporate scripted role model for millions of girls who believe that one has to act like a prostitute in order to be popular and cool. It does not matter that young women and girls in Syria will, in short order, be reduced to bloody corpses, possibly by Thursday.
Rogue government moves toward war despite American’s opposition
August 27, 2013
What better way to lift the veil of distraction from the government’s recently exposed domestic spy program than a brand new war?
Photo: Turkish Naval Forces via Wikimedia Commons
America is most likely going to war with Syria this week in what would be history’s most unpopular war yet.According to Reuters, Americans adamantly oppose Syrian intervention with only 9 percent believing Obama should attack the nation.
The poll reveals Americans would be more inclined to support the war if provided actual facts indicating Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did in fact use chemical weapons against his people.
In a period of 7-10 days, American’s support for the war has fallen from 30.2 percent to 25 percent, and those opinions stand only if proof of a chemical weapons attack is provided. Despite the people’s opposition, the US is still aggressively positioning themselves for attack.
The claim Assad used chemical weapons against his people is asinine considering the country’s awareness that a Western assault would soon follow. Syria has consistently expressed reluctance to become entangled with the United States military.
Despite blatant war propaganda including photographs of dead women and children who allegedly succumbed to a chemical weapons attack in a Damascus suburb this week, Americans still aren’t convinced.
NBC News reports that the US could strike Syria with three days worth of missiles in an attempt to “send a message” rather than cripple Syria’s army. Warplanes and military transporters are assembling on Britain’s Akrotiri airbase on Cyprus, which is likely to serve as a hub for the air campaign.
Sources say unidentified snipers fired at a vehicle carrying UN inspection team members, further delaying the investigation. The team only needed to travel 15 minutes to get from their hotel to the Mouadamiya district of west Ghouta in Damascus, where the chemical weapons attack is said to have taken place, but they arrived on the scene 4 hours late in a vehicle riddled with bullet holes.
The Guardian’s report said doctors traveling with the UN team took blood and urine samples and recorded video statements from more than 20 victims. The team also collected samples of soil where the chemical rocket allegedly landed, but were unable to access the main six sites where the majority of the chemical rockets allegedly had fallen. The Syrian regime asked them to leave immediately and could not guarantee the team’s safety if they remained.
Dr. Abu Akram confirmed his clinic had 2,000 victims of the gas attack in which 500 were in critical condition. “Eighty people were pronounced dead at the hospital and I now have 20 victims in intensive care,” he said.
The victims told the UN inspection team that they had been sleeping in their homes when the attack occurred.
According to the Guardian, a US military strike on stockpiles of chemical weapons could widely disperse neurotoxins causing far more harm than the alleged previous attack.
As of today the positioning of Navy destroyers and submarines in the Mediterranean Sea will enable the US military to launch Tomahawk missile strikes at Syria with the precision of hitting not just buildings but specifically targeted windows.
Russia and China have both warned the US against attacking Syria before the UN inspection team’s investigation is complete. Both nations made it clear they would be “deeply displeased” if the US proceeds with an attack.
Russia’s deputy prime minister, Dmitry Rogozin described the West as “acting in the Islamic world like a ‘monkey with a hand grenade.’” Russia has subsequently sent aircraft into Syria in an attempt to evacuate their people.
A report by Paul Joseph Watson states that the West’s decision to attack Syria was made over a year ago. The US government’s decision to move forward with an attack on Syria in spite of Americans being heavily against it, further illustrates how out of control our criminal political system has become.
However, this time around Americans are waking up to the rogue government’s war propaganda, noticing it as Obama’s diversion to the tyranny that’s arrived on American soil under the domestic spy program carried out by paramilitary forces now acting domestically.
Syrian president says that the recent American wars have only destabilized the Middle East and other parts of the world.
August 27, 2013
In a recent interview with the Russian newspaper Izvestia, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has stressed that Syria is not a puppet state and that the majority of rebels his government is fighting are connected to al-Qaeda.
Credit: Fabio Rodrigues Pozzebom via Wikimedia Commons
When asked what parts of Syria remain under rebel control, Assad said that his government has been dealing with an “influx of large amounts of terrorists from other countries – estimated in the tens of thousands at the very least.”
“The majority of those we are fighting are Takfiris, who adopt the al-Qaeda doctrine,” he said.
Assad further emphasized that American politicians should listen to the American people rather than try to install “puppet leaders” across the world to satisfy their own political objectives.
“Today there are many Western politicians, but very few statesmen,” he said. “Some of these politicians do not read history or even learn from it, whilst others do not even remember recent events.”
“Have these politicians learned any lessons from the past 50 years at least?”
Assad further stated that the U.S. has waged many wars since Vietnam but has failed to achieve its political objectives from any of them.
“Have they not learned that they have gained nothing from these wars but the destruction of the countries they fought, which has had a destabilizing effect on the Middle East and other parts of the world?” he asked. “Have they not comprehended that all of these wars have not made people in the region appreciate them or believe in their policies?”
His statements aren’t surprising considering the comprehensive documentation that support his claims, including admissions by U.S. government officials.
Last December, Paul Joseph Watson reported that at least 29 different Syrian rebel groups are pledging allegiance to the Nusra Front, an al-Qaeda affiliate group responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.
“Syrian rebels have been responsible for a plethora of atrocities, from terrorist attacks and massacres, to forcing people to become suicide bombers, to attacks on Christian churches and making children carry out grisly beheadings of unarmed prisoners,” Watson wrote.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has even admitted to BBC that these Syrian rebels on the same side as the U.S. in Syria are terrorist groups.
“We have a very dangerous set of actors in the region, Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and those who are on our terrorist list, to be sure, supporting – claiming to support the opposition in Syria,” she said.
President Obama has been openly supporting the Syrian rebels since at least June when he said he would provide military aid to them.
Details of secret talks between Putin, Saudi prince leaked; Intel head admits to controlling Chechen jihadists in Syria
Aug 27, 2013
Saudi intelligence has issued a tacit threat to have terrorist attacks carried out in Russia at the Winter Olympics in February 2014, should the state continue to support the Assad regime in Syria.
The threat was revealed in leaked transcripts of a closed-door meeting three weeks ago between Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan.
It appears that following initial vocal concerns expressed by Gulf state diplomats and senior leaders of the Syrian opposition, the leaked material was provided to the Russian media. More details then emerged in the Lebanese newspaper As-Safir, which is sympathetic to Hezbollah and thus extremely inhospitable toward Saudi Arabia.
The respected middle east news agency Al Monitor carries a translated version of the As-Safir report which suggests that during the talks, Bandar, who heads the primary Saudi intelligence agency, allegedly presented a cornucopia of offers and threats with regards to Syria.
In return for Russia’s cooperation, Bandar is alleged to have promised to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria should Assad be forced from power.
Perhaps the most interesting snippet in the report, has Bandar suggesting that should Russia elect not to reach an agreement over Syria, Chechen terrorist attacks may be carried out on the Russian hosted Winter Olympics next year in Sochi.
“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year.” Bandar is alleged to have said. What makes the pledge threatening is that he is also quoted as saying “The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”
Bandar also allegedly stated that Chechen terrorists currently in Syria were a tool that could be used at will.
“The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us.” Bandar is quoted as saying. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.” he added.
Bandar also allegedly said that he was speaking with the full backing of the US government.
The London Telegraph also reported on the leaked notes, noting the Saudi prince’s attempt to further sweeten Putin with a secret sweeping oil deal and a pledge to safeguard Russia’s gas contracts should he abandon support for the Assad government.
The deal appears to be in the form of an offer to form a Russian/OPEC alliance on oil production that would significantly affect global markets. While Syria is not a major oil producer, any military action taken against the country could have wider repercussions on oil markets.
Vladimir Putin is said to have responded “We know that you have supported the Chechen terrorist groups for a decade. And that support, which you have frankly talked about just now, is completely incompatible with the common objectives of fighting global terrorism that you mentioned. We are interested in developing friendly relations according to clear and strong principles.”
The Russian president is also said to have commented “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters.” referring to the rebels.
Bandar is said to have responded that there would be “no escape from the military option” if Russia were to decline the Saudi terms for accord.
The leaked transcripts do dovetail with initial reports that sourced anonymous European and Arab diplomats.
It is possible that the leaked transcripts could be embellished by Russian intelligence, for propaganda purposes. However, the detail contained within them makes them appear authentic. Regardless, the report makes for compelling reading, particularly considering Saudi Arabia’s eagerness to take decisive action to overthrow and remove the Syrian government permanently.
Webster Tarpley has also recently detailed the fallout of the Saudi/Russian standoff:
Potential military strike in Syria sparks concern in Congress
Updated at 3:40 p.m. ET
Some members of Congress are calling on President Obama to get congressional approval — or at least consult more closely with the legislative branch — before launching military strikes against the Syrian government for its alleged use of chemical weapons.
Kerry: Syria use of chemical weapons "undeniable"
On Monday — giving a clear indication that the administration is readying for action — Secretary of State John Kerry said the evidence "is screaming at us" that chemical weapons were used in Syria. On Tuesday, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said that the world’s most powerful military was "in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take" in Syria. Mr. Obama and his administration have communicated with some lawmakers on the situation in Syria this week, but some congressmen insist the president should follow the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and receive authorization from Congress before using any military force in Syria.
Rep. Scott Rigell, R-Va., a member of the House Armed Services Committee, began collecting signatures in Congress Tuesday for a letter urging Mr. Obama to get congressional approval before launching any strikes. By early Tuesday afternoon, more than 20 congressmen had signed onto Rigell’s letter, including at least one Democrat, Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas.
"Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution," the letter says. "If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict."
Libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress, including Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky. and Justin Amash, R-Mich., said via Twitter on Tuesday that any action without congressional approval would clearly be unconstitutional.
On Monday, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, communicated with the White House on the situation in Syria but he urged the administration to increase its engagement with Congress.
"The Speaker made clear that before any action is taken there must be meaningful consultation with members of Congress, as well as clearly defined objectives and a broader strategy to achieve stability," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said in a statement.
A handful of senior lawmakers have confirmed to CBS News that they’ve also consulted with the executive branch on Syria. House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon, R-Calif., has been briefed by senior Defense Department officials about the developing situation, a congressional spokesman said.
On Monday, an aide to Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said that members of the administration including Kerry have reached out to Menendez. Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spoke to administration officials a couple of times over the weekend and on Monday about the evolving situation in Syria. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has spoken to both Mr. Obama and National Security Adviser Susan Rice in recent days.
Other senators on Monday called for more consultation with Congress.
Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,called the use of chemical weapons "despicable" but said that "absent an imminent threat to United States national security, the U.S. should not be engaged in military action without Congressional approval."
Sen. Mark Udall, D-Colo., a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Intelligence Committee, said in a statement, "Secretary Kerry was clear that it is now a question of how, not whether, the United States will respond, but Congress still needs to hear from the president directly. More importantly, the president needs to explain his plan to the American people, who are understandably reluctant to support further military engagement in the Middle East."
Udall said he has "real concerns" that a surgical strike in Syria could lead the U.S. into deeper involvement in a complicated civil war, but that remaining on the sidelines could also have grave consequences.
Other lawmakers, meanwhile, came out more forcefully for action against Syria.
Rep. Elliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said in a statement Monday, "I hope that the Administration will now move quickly to act against the Assad regime and show the world that the use of such weapons will not be tolerated."
Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., a member of the Homeland Security Committee, told CNN on Monday that "we have to act." Furthermore, he said that Mr. Obama doesn’t necessarily have to get congressional approval.
"I believe, as commander in chief, he has the right to take this action," he said. "It’s in his interest to consult with the leadership in the House and Senate, but I don’t believe he has to."
King added that he’s still not an advocate of the Syrian opposition, explaining, "I believe that in the last year or so they’ve become significantly controlled by al Qaeda."
In an interview with the Daily Beast, McCain suggested Mr. Obama is partially to blame for the continued use of chemical weapons in Syria.
"Assad was able to use chemical weapons before and there was no response, and so why not do it again? This should surprise no one," McCain said. "They viewed that not as a red line but as a green light, and they acted accordingly."
© 2013 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Military leaders wrap up conference on Syria crisis
By Slobodan Lekic
Stars and Stripes
Published: August 27, 2013
AMMAN, Jordan — A meeting of top military officials from 10 regional and Western nations, including Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrapped up Tuesday as the Obama administration appeared to be preparing for military action in Syria amid claims that government forces used banned chemical weapons.
Jordan’s semi-official Petra news agency said the conference was held at the invitation of Jordan’s chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Mishaal Zaben, and Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of U.S. Central Command.
Jordanian officials and foreign diplomats refused to comment on the meeting, beyond saying it was focused on the escalating crisis in Syria and aimed at coordinating security responses across the region. The State Department said it was not related to the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack near Damascus.
“The exchange is designed to increase the collective understanding of the impact of regional conflicts on nations, foster ongoing dialogue and improve security relationships,” said an official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Jordanian officials and diplomats stressed that the meeting, which also brought together top military officials from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Canada, was not called in response to the alleged use of chemical weapons on Aug. 21 near Damascus in which several hundred people reportedly perished.
A former top Jordanian politician, who remains close to this country’s political establishment, said the military leaders were looking at ways to help Jordan and prevent a spillover of Syria’s civil war into neighboring nations, which have already taken in hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees. It was also meant to plan for an influx of even more displaced Syrians “if events take a turn for the worse,” said the official, who declined to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record.
Stratfor, a Texas-based geopolitical intelligence firm, noted that among those taking part in the two-day conference in Amman were Turkey, Jordan and Britain — from its bases in Cyprus — which would be among the most relevant countries in the event of a possible military response against Syria.
“Given that Turkey and Jordan are particularly vulnerable to retaliation from Iran and Syria, the diplomacy surrounding their participation will be critical,” said a Stratfor report on Tuesday.
Although Damascus has vehemently denied its forces used chemical weapons in the attack, France and Britain have been equally adamant in claiming that all the evidence pointed to Syrian forces’ culpability.
U.N. investigators, who on Monday gained access to the victims and to affected areas on the eastern edge of Damascus, have not yet determined the nature of the weapons used in the attack.
Until now, the Obama administration has been reluctant to get involved in the Syrian conflict or to lend its full backing to armed opposition groups fighting the government due to concerns over the Islamist nature of some of the most effective insurgent contingents. In addition, deep splits within the opposition alliance have not inspired confidence in its ability to govern Syria.
But with momentum for military action building, Secretary of State John Kerry warned Damascus on Monday that mounting evidence indicated its forces had launched the chemical attack, saying it “goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself” and would not be allowed to pass “without consequences.”
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel on Tuesday in conversations with his French and British counterparts said the U.S. is committed to “working with the international community to respond to the outrageous chemical attacks,” and that “the United States military is prepared for any contingency involving Syria,” Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said in a statement.
In an interview with BBC television, Hagel said the U.S. military was prepared to strike Syria at once if President Barack Obama gives the order.
“We are ready to go,” Hagel said, adding that “to me it’s clearer and clearer” that the Syrian regime was responsible, but that the administration was waiting for intelligence agencies to make that determination.
Four U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class destroyers — and possibly a nuclear-powered submarine — were being moved into cruise missile range of Syrian targets.
The Jordanian military, numbering about 120,000 troops, has been redeploying a large part of its combat units to the northern border with Syria to prevent a spillover of the fighting. Jordanian officials say about 560,000 Syrians have already fled across the frontier.
Although the international community — including the United States as Jordan’s largest foreign aid donor — has picked up much of the tab for caring for the refugees, Western governments fear that the mass influx could destabilize Jordan, a resource-poor kingdom seen as a key U.S. ally in the region.
The United States is believed to have about 1,000 troops based in Jordan, including a headquarters unit, an F-16 fighter detachment at Mafraq air base, as well as Patriot anti-missiles at two sites in the kingdom. These were left in place after taking part in a massive international military exercise in Jordan in June.
In addition, the USS Kearsarge, a Marine amphibious assault ship, is reported to be steaming near Jordan’s only port of Aqaba.
Second urgent UN Security Council meeting on Syria crisis
Peter James Spielmann
August 30, 2013 – 6:16AM
The UN Security Council’s permanent members are meeting for the second time in two days to discuss Syria’s crisis.
Envoys from the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China entered the meeting on Thursday afternoon at UN headquarters.
A tension-filled meeting Wednesday ended with the council bitterly divided over a UK-proposed resolution to authorise the use of military force against Syria in retaliation for an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds near Damascus.
Delegates vote on a resolution in the United Nations Security Council. Photo: AP
United Nations: The five permanent members of the UN Security Council have held new talks on the Syria chemical weapons crisis but made no apparent progress on UN action.
The 45-minute meeting was the second since Britain proposed a draft Security Council resolution which would allow ‘‘all necessary measures’’ to protect Syrian civilians after a suspected chemical weapons attack last week in which hundreds died.
None of the envoys from Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States commented as they left however.
The United States, Britain and France are considering a military strike against President Bashar al-Assad’s forces over the suspected chemical weapons attack.Russia and China oppose any UN-sanctioned action however and have warned other countries against any attack.
Britain’s UN ambassador Mark Lyall Grant said Russia, Dr Assad’s key backer, had called the latest meeting.
‘‘I hope that means that they (the Russians) are now prepared to support the British draft resolution,’’ Lyall Grant told reporters as he went into the talks.
Public becomes more aware of government’s constant lies and contradictions
August 29, 2013
There is one war the American people are winning, and that’s the info war.
Government and the mainstream media have lost all credibility, leaving opportunity for the alternative media to swoop in and expose the truth, waking up people across the globe.
The continued unraveling of government scandals backed up by a clearly biased mainstream media narrative has Americans fed up and unwilling to consent to another war.
Nearly a month ago, Infowars reported that the Department of Defense had announced plans to increase its public affairs efforts due to the independent media’s devastating effect on their ability to control its negative news stories.
The DoD specifically blamed DrudgeReport.com and citizen journalists as the reason for no longer have the people’s support.
“The public is more quickly becoming aware of the constant patterns of contradictions and habitual lying by a government long ago captured by a group of corrupt interests,” we reported.
In an effort to expand the reach of alternative media, Alex Jones has joined forces with Anthony Gucciardi’sStoryleak.
Last month, the Secretary of Defense for public affairs, George Little, admitted, “..we cannot hide our bad news stories. Bad news gets out one way or the other and we must come to terms with telling bad stories as well as the good.”
During a White House briefing, Deputy Press Secretary Josh Earnest, desperately tried to convince the public of the need for war with Syria. Earnest reiterated the importance of the U.S. need to respond to the use of chemical weapons in order to “enforce a critically international norm.”
“It is not OK for totalitarian dictators to flout chemical weapons with impunity,” said Earnest.
“The global community wants this norm enforced,” Earnest stated; he failed, however, to draw a parallel between the US’s own murder of innocent men, women and children via the covert drone program and the Assad regime’s alleged use of chemical weapons against civilians.
Of course that comparison can’t truly be made because the West and its allies are likely responsible for the chemical weapons attack, not Assad.
When asked if Obama planned to obtain a vote from Congress to authorize an attack on Syria, Earnest said the President will seek “robust congressional consultation” and will act to “protect international norms against weapons of mass destruction.”
Earnest rejected comparisons of an attack on Syria to the invasion of Iraq, persisting it’s not the goal of the U.S. to change Syria’s regime, such as it was in Iraq.
The Deputy Press Secretary maintained an attack on Syria would be “limited and discrete.” He also said the U.S. government does not believe they need to wait for the U.N. chemical weapons team to complete their investigation because they already know Assad is responsible and any other details are irrelevant.
Reporters in attendance to the White House briefing were noticeably pushing hard for more information, calling the government’s so-called “proof” merely circumstantial evidence.
Reporters asked whether the U.S. government intends to release the remaining proof they allegedly have, but Earnest clammed up citing the information as classified and expressed his inability to speak on it.
He told reporters the classified information needed to be withheld due to national security reasons, but reporters kept pushing, asking if the Obama administration really believes Assad’s use of chemical weapons is a “direct imminent threat to the United States.”
“Assad’s willingness to use chemical weapons endangers the global community,” said Earnest.
The public’s growing skepticism of the governments’ narrative can only be attributed to the explosive growth of alternative media.
According to a report by Story Leak, “…former US National Security Adviser and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski commented on the growing inefficiency of war due to the increased political knowledge of the public.”
Americans are waking up. If our rogue government decides to go to war with Syria, it will certainly be against the wishes of the American people, fueling their skepticism and furthering their mistrust of the mainstream media.
Senator says rebels more likely to be behind chemical weapons attack
Paul Joseph Watson
August 29, 2013
Kentucky Senator Rand Paul says it’s more likely the Syrian rebels were behind last week’s chemical weapons attack, warning President Obama that military escalation risked provoking a major war with Russia in the longer term.
“There are some questions, it sounds more and more like chemical weapons were used but there are some questions and it should be investigated who used them,” said Paul during a radio interview, adding, “Pat Buchanan had an article the other day and he asked the Latin phrase cui bono – to whose benefit is this?….This is to the benefit of the rebels because now it’s bringing other people in on their side, so there’s a great incentive for this to have actually been launched by rebels not the Syrian Army.”
Despite the Obama administration initially claiming it was “undeniable” that Bashar Al-Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, US officials admitted to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”
Numerous different examples of rebels using chemical weapons have largely been ignored by the mainstream media as the war drums grow louder.
Warning that possible intervention in Syria was not some kind of “geopolitical chess game,” Paul said Obama seemed to have learned nothing from the Cold War.
“Are we going to slide into a major war with Russia on the other side of this and draw Russia into this war as well….this isn’t just a game of hey let’s push a button and blow up some people and tell them they shouldn’t use chemical weapons,” said Paul.
The Senator also chided Obama’s implication that a cruise missile attack would not represent an act of war, adding, “The problem is, what if one of our planes get shot down or what if some of the CIA trainers over there who are training troops get killed – then there’ll be an overwhelming outcry for getting more involved.”
In a separate radio interview, the Kentucky Senator slammed Obama for dismissing the need to secure constitutional authorization to launch a military assault, warning that American lives could potentially be lost because of “a President who is drunk with power.”
“We shouldn’t allow this, and we fight with every tool we have to try to stop him,” concluded Senator Paul.
Paul says that only Congress can declare war on Syria.
August 29, 2013
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stated today that the U.S. government should obey the Constitution to the letter and that only Congress, not the president, can declare war on Syria, which he does not believe is an immediate threat to U.S. national security.
Credit: Gage Skidmore via Flickr
“We have a separation of powers,” he said in a radio interview on the Mike Huckabee Show. “The Constitution says that when we go to war, Congress declares war and the president executes the war.”
“If the president is contemplating war or contemplating offensive action against Syria, there should be a joint session of Congress and he should try and convince us for the need for it.”
Show host Mike Huckabee said that the Constitutional issue Paul raised is “the critical one” because the War Powers Act of 1973 clarified that unless the U.S. is already under attack or under eminent danger of a pending attack, the president has to have Congressional approval in order to commit U.S. armed forces into conflict.
“Nobody, nobody can claim that Syria is about to drop one [a bomb] on the U.S.,” Huckabee said.
“The interesting thing about it is that when President Obama was a Senator in 2007, he said exactly that no president should unilaterally go to war without the authority of Congress,” Paul responded.
He was referring to then-Senator Obama’s interview with the Boston Globe in late 2007.
“The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation,” Obama said.
The then-Senator from Illinois further emphasized that the president can only act unilaterally in “instances of self-defense.”
Paul pointed out that President Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, did come to Congress about taking military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which came to a vote.
“There needs to be a big debate particularly because it’s so muddled in Syria that we may well be allies with al-Qaeda if we go in,” he said.
Huckabee mentioned that al-Qaeda has apparently sensed an opportunity in Syria to join the movement against the current Syrian government.
“I’m a little surprised that John McCain continues to act as if everything is fine and these are all good people we can trust,” he said.
Huckabee continued saying that McCain seems to be the only person he knows of with that point of view.
“No one I have talked to in our military, none of the intelligence officers seem to believe that there is a pure group that’s coalesced with the rebels right now,” he said. “If we go take on Syria, we might be emboldening Iran and at the same time empowering al-Qaeda.”
“The interesting thing is that I believe we need leadership in our country that has a healthy reluctance to war,” Paul responded. “We should understand and obey the separations of powers and Congress should be the one making this decision.”
Paul made reference to a James Madison statement on war in the Federalist papers.
“He [Madison] said the executive branch is the one most likely to go to war, therefore we vested the power to declare war with Congress,” he said. “The Constitution separated that power precisely to slow things down and have a debate.”
Paul said that the president absolutely has the authority for military response under a current or eminent attack, but that’s not what’s happening. Instead, supporters for the war in Syria are suggesting that the country is “somehow a threat to our national security.”
“That needs to be debated out in the open because to my knowledge there is no evidence that Syria is any threat to any U.S. personnel abroad or anywhere,” Paul said. “I’ve spoken out publicly that there needs to be a joint session of Congress before any military action is taken.”
“There needs to be a vote in Congress.”
Currently a letter is circulating around the U.S. House stating that the president has a “moral and constitutional obligation” to go to Congress before proceeding with a war. So far, it has been signed by 132 representatives, including 20 Democrats.
This growing movement, complimented by Paul, has been led by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.)
Prior to his interview with Sen. Paul, Huckabee spoke to Rigell about the letter.
“This is not a partisan issue and we’ve never approached it that way,” Rigell said. “It is truly a constitutional issue.”
Timescale for attack now up in the air; Support for military action crumbling; Hezbollah deploys troops to border; EU urges Israel to show restraint; Assad uses diplomatic back channels to deny retaliation threats
Aug 29, 2013
Foreign intelligence sources have claimed that The White House is using the threat of military action in Syria as a bargaining chip to make a deal with Russia, while the media in Washington is beginning to question the certainty of an imminent strike.
Intel website DEBKAfile states that its sources in Washington and Moscow claim that Obama “has applied the brakes” on military strikes scheduled for Friday or Saturday while Secretary of State John Kerry completes secret negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.
The site notes that the US wants to “strike a deal” with Vladimir Putin’s government:
“The US would soften its military action against the Assad regime and his army and reduce it to a token blow,” the report states, “after which the American and Russian presidents would announce the convening of Geneva-2 to hammer out a solution of the Syrian crisis and end the civil war.”
The report notes that a delay in releasing a promised intelligence report to provide evidence of the Syrian government’s culpability in chemical attacks, along with the President’s declaration this morning that he hasn’t made his mind up yet, are covers for the ongoing back channel deal brokering.
Washington insiders have also suggested that Obama’s window for making a decision on any attack is rapidly closing because he is scheduled to travel to Europe next Wednesday for the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg.
“The Kerry-Lavrov back channel has not yet achieved results and so, Thursday, the fate of the US strike on Syria was still highly fluid and its timeline changeable.” Debkafile reports.
Meanwhile, it seems that the mainstream media is beginning to doubt the veracity of US threats.
Guardian Washington correspondent Paul Lewis reports that he detects “a degree of uncertainty” creeping in against the assumption that the president is on the brink of launching military strikes “probably this weekend”:
“The problem facing White House is three-fold. First, its intelligence assessment, pinning culpability for the chemical weapons attack on Assad, may not be as watertight as many had been expecting. Second, and partly as a result of that, cracks are appearing in Congress, which is fully aware there is minimal support among the US electorate for strikes. Third and perhaps most interestingly is the lack of international support.” the Guardian reporter notes.
“Most of the experts I’ve spoken to today believe the US is still likely to forge ahead with limited strikes against Syria. But the speed at which they were moving toward that position may have been significantly reduced.” the reporter adds.
A British parliamentary revolt against military action, as well as widely circulated reports quoting inside sources saying that the intelligence does not provide a “smoking gun” or “slam dunk” against Assad has also no doubt contributed to a delay in the timeline for striking Syria.
The Iranian Fars News Agency also reports that Vladimir Putin is convinced that the Syrian government has not used chemical weapons “since they have been advancing in the war and did not need to do it.”
In a phone conversation with Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani, Putin is said to have stated ” if US has any evidence to prove that Syria has used chemical weapons, as they claim, they should give their information to the UN inspectors.”
Fars also reports that Syrian Deputy Foreign Fayssal Mekdad has today presented the UN team with undeniable proof that militants, not the Syrian army, had used the weapons.
Meanwhile, during a meeting with military leaders, Assad is said to be expecting a military strike, and has pledged “This is a historic confrontation that we will come out of victorious.”
“Since the beginning of the crisis, and we were sure that the moment will come when our real enemy knocks his head into our country intervening.” Syrian newspaper Al-Akhbar reports.
In Lebanon, government sources have said that Hezbollah has declared a state of alert among its cadres and started deploying troops to the southern border amid mounting expectations of a US strike on Syria.
It has been reported that officials in Europe have urged the Israeli government to “exercise restraint in case of an assault by Assad or other ‘actors’ supporting him.”
Over the past week various Syrian officials have stated that Israel would become a target should Syria be attacked. A report in Kuwait’s al-Rai newspaper, however, cites European Union officials who have said that Assad has “used diplomatic back channels to convey that he does not intend to attack Israel as this would lead the Syrian campaign to uncharted territory.”
August 29, 2013
The New York Times is the premier propaganda organ of the globalist international order.
It demonstrated its chops during the invasion of Iraq when propaganda hack, Judith Miller, faithfully telegraphed neocon lies and fabrications, thus lending momentary credence to the argument for invading a country seriously enfeebled by more than a decade of medieval sanctions.
The Times “backed NATO’s killing machine in Libya,” writes Stephen Lendman. “It sanitized mass killing, destruction, and human misery. Now it’s waging war on Syria and Iran. It vilifies regimes Washington opposes. It defends sabotage and targeted assassinations… The New York Times supports Washington’s permanent war policy. Its agenda suppresses truth and full disclosure.”
Now, in addition to paving over truth with the sort of rank lies peddled by the neocon operative Miller and other establishment propaganda specialists in and out of government, the Times advocates Obama violate the Constitution and ignore international law, thus offhandedly excusing serious criminality under a thin and hypocritical veneer of redefined morality.
“There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria,” writes Ian Hurd, an associate professor of political science at Northwestern. “But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law.”
Hurd argues that there “is no doubt that Mr. Assad’s government has violated humanitarian principles throughout the two-year-old war,” a war Hurd fails to put in the appropriate context – the war in Syria is a civil war between al-Qaeda and other fanatical jihadists supported by the CIA and the government of Syria
Instead, Hurd raises the specter of the Rwandan genocide and the supposed Balkan mass killings of the 1990s, the latter also largely a propaganda operation contrived by the United States and NATO. According to Hurd, the war crimes perpetuated by NATO in the former Yugoslavia, including the use of depleted uranium, were “illegal but legitimate” because they addressed a government declared larger crime, a crime invented by theClinton administration and NATO’s war ministers.
Hurd and other apologists for organized mass murder would have us accept the obvious fabrication (as U.S. intelligence now hints) and illogical conclusion that al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people at precisely the same time the United States and its war partners were fishing for an excuse to attack.
Mr. Hurd offers the “illegal but legitimate” argument, a basic contradiction, as the only course of action. He calls for “constructive noncompliance,” in other words rejection of the international law on one hand and the Constitution on the other.
If the United States, now guilty of numerous illegal wars since the end of the Second World War (and the slaughter of millions), “accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path,” a path terminating in even more murder and criminality, Hurd states.
The New York Times has reached a new level and is apparently striving to rival the well-oiled propaganda machines of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.
Onslaught to begin when UN inspectors leave
Paul Joseph Watson
August 29, 2013
A reporter with Israel’s most widely read newspaper has been told by defense establishment officials that a US-led attack on Syria will begin on Saturday and end when Barack Obama meets Vladimir Putin on Wednesday.
Despite an apparent softening in rhetoric as British Prime Minister David Cameron faces a parliamentary revolt over military intervention, in addition to reports that the intelligence against Assad’s regime is by no means a “slam dunk,” Israel Hayom reporter Amir Mizroch tweets that the attack will begin on Saturday immediately after UN inspectors have left the country.
Inspectors had initially planned to leave on Sunday after concluding their investigation but their departure a day early has increased speculation that air strikes are imminent.
British and American military might is now fully in place and prepared for strikes which experts say will takethe form of Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles fired from warships or submarines.
Mizroch also highlights remarks made by former Mossad director Danny Yatom, who says that the apparent delay on green lighting military strikes is only so Bashar Al-Assad can’t use the UN inspectors as human shields.
Mizroch was also told that Israel sent Assad a message via Russia threatening that if Syria attempts to attack Israel, Damascus will be targeted and Assad’s regime will be toppled.
This threat was made despite attempts by Gulf nations to secure a promise from Israel that it would act with restraint if Syria attempts retaliatory strikes against Israel in response to a western onslaught. Israel replied that it would act with restraint, but only if aggression against it “did not exceed reasonable bounds.”
In a related story, U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro has promised a “strong and serious response,” to Assad’s alleged chemical atrocity last week, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.
US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk,” a far cry form the Obama administration’s rhetoric, which held that Assad’s responsibility was “undeniable.”