Commentary on the economic , geopolitical and simply fascinating things going on. Served occasionally with a side of snark.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Prime Minister Cameron's utter humiliation in Parliament today is Exhibit A for why President Obama will absolutely refuse to request War Authority from Congress - he knows what's in store for him if he tries that ! And here is the big issue - the issue Obama and the war mongers do NOT want to debate publicly - is the US campaigning in syria in support of Al Qaeda and proponents of transitional jihadist islam ?
David Cameron’s authority in Parliament and on the world stage was dealt an unprecedented blow last night as he faced a breathtaking Commons defeat over plans for missile strikes on Syria.
In an extraordinary assault on the Prime Minister’s authority, 50 coalition MPs joined Labour in voting against a watered-down Government motion supporting the ‘principle’ of military action.
There were shouts of ‘resign’ from the Labour benches as the result – 285 votes to 272 – was announced to a shocked House of Commons.
Chastened: British MPs voted by 272 votes to 285 to reject Prime Minister David Cameron's motion backing British intervention in principle
The last time a Prime Minister was defeated over an issue of war and peace was in 1782.
A Downing Street source said Mr Cameron had no intention of resigning, adding: ‘His colleagues support him on most things, but on this issue they disagreed.’
Education Secretary Michael Gove was said to have shouted at Tory rebels outside the chamber: ‘You’re a disgrace, you’re a disgrace.’
Mr Cameron, who had made a passionate plea for support over proposals for targeted strikes on Damascus after a chemical weapons attack last week, was forced to issue a humiliating climbdown.
Blast: People inspect the damage at a site hit by what activists say was a car bomb in Raqqa province, Syria
‘It is clear to me the British Parliament does not want to see British military action. I get that and the Government will act accordingly,’ he told MPs.
His decision to pledge to stand shoulder to shoulder with the US in a planned attack on Syria, and to recall Parliament from its summer recess for an emergency debate, backfired spectacularly.
Mr Cameron had been counting on Labour’s support to ensure he could win a Commons vote authorising strikes, despite the doubts of scores of Tory MPs.
Labour, however, refused to back the Government, prompting the angriest foreign policy row between the main parties since Suez in 1956.
The Tories accused Ed Miliband of giving ‘succour’ to President Bashar Assad’s regime.
Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said: ‘I’m disappointed with Ed Miliband’s behaviour, frankly. Anything that stops this from giving a clear, united view of the British Parliament will give some succour to the regime.’
After the vote, Mr Hammond said: ‘I hope Britain isn’t going to retreat into being the sort of nation that isn’t going to act to uphold international norms.’
Sir Gerald Howarth, a former defence minister who voted ‘reluctantly’ with the Government, accused Mr Cameron of rushing into the vote.
Reza Afshar, head of the Syria team at the Foreign Office, tweeted simply: ‘Disaster.’
Debate: A chastened Mr Cameron was forced by Labour leader Ed Miliband to pledge not to deploy any UK military forces without first staging
another Commons vote
Dusty landscape: Free Syrian Army fighters drive a military tank that belonged to forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad after they seized it, in Aleppo's town of Khanasir
Senior US officials said President Obama was prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike despite last night’s vote.
Two Tory ministers, International Development Secretary Justine Greening and Foreign Office minister Mark Simmonds, apparently missed the vote after not hearing a division bell.
An earlier Labour motion, demanding further conditions before Britain could be involved in any military action, was defeated by 332 votes to 220. In other developments:
A letter published by Britain’s intelligence chiefs said it was ‘highly likely’ the Syrian regime carried out last week’s attack, but US officials suggested the evidence was ‘not a slam dunk’;
The Government insisted military action would be legal on humanitarian grounds even without the backing of the UN Security Council;
Russia, a belligerent supporter of Assad’s regime, deployed war ships in the eastern Mediterranean;
Military chiefs prepared for the possibility that the Assad regime might retaliate to an attack with a strike on the UK’s sovereign base at Akrotiri on Cyprus;
The Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warned intervening in Syria could lead to an ‘open season’ on Christians in the region;
The Syrian regime accused Mr Cameron of ‘communicating through a monologue of blood and fire’.
Moment: MPs last night dramatically voted against David Cameron's plea to take military action against Syria
Recall: Mr Cameron told a packed House of Commons that Britain had to decide how to respond to 'one of the most abhorrent uses of chemical weapons in a century'
Demonstrate: Protesters speaking out against military action in Syria stand outside the Houses of Parliament
Last night’s vote is a grave humiliation for Mr Cameron and will also raise doubts about the future of the ‘Special
Relationship’ between Britain and the US.
One Whitehall source said Britain was ‘handing back its deputy sheriff’s badge’ to Washington.
The shadow of Tony Blair loomed large over yesterday’s proceedings, with speaker after speaker referring to the mistakes and misinformation of the Iraq War.
The Prime Minister acknowledged that Iraq had ‘truly poisoned the well of public opinion’ on military intervention.
As the Coalition of One lurches forward , we see there is no country apparently willing to " publicly " support the US attacks , note how thin support truly is..... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/08/29/with-britain-out-allies-abandon-obama-on-syria.html
Parliament silenced David Cameron’s war drums Thursday, as France, Italy, and others pulled back from the brink. Will the U.S. now go it alone? By Nico Hines.
If President Obama orders a military strike against Syria in the next few days, America will almost certainly be forced to act in isolation. The battle to secure a broad international coalition has collapsed in disarray as a swath of regular allies sought postponements or rejected the idea of firing missiles toward Damascus.
A man walks in front of a burning building after a Syrian Air Force air strike in the Ain Tarma neighborhood of Damascus, January 27, 2013. (Goran Tomasevic/Reuters)
The drumbeats of war appeared to be strengthening in Washington, but recent partners from conflicts in Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan have been backing away from direct involvement in the proposed military action against President Bashar al-Assad.
Italian politicians said their military bases, which were used for international assaults on Libya and Kosovo, would be off-limits for any strike unless the United Nations Security Council passed a resolution in support of an intervention. Canada, Germany, and the Netherlands urged caution, while British Prime Minister David Cameron, one of the loudest advocates of military action, was resoundingly overruled by a skeptical Parliament.
Certainly, most governments said it was necessary to wait for the results of a United Nations investigation into an alleged chemical-weapons attack on the city of Ghouta. U.N. inspectors are still gathering information and aren’t expected to make their findings known until next week.
In London, where Cameron has stepped into the role of chief U.S. ally once played by Tony Blair, the issue of supporting American airstrikes descended into farce. The Conservative prime minister was left humiliated after throwing his weight behind military force, only to discover that he could not force his wishes through Parliament.
After two conversations with Obama this week, one lasting 40 minutes, Cameron was bullish about the prospects of a joint military strike. He cut short his holiday in Cornwall and raced back to London while Downing Street staff briefed members of the media that military strikes could begin within days. A senior British foreign-policy official boasted to The Daily Beast that Cameron had been prominent in pushing for a trans-Atlantic intervention. “This will be a joint U.S.-U.K. action with, probably, France not far behind,” he said on Tuesday.
Post-Iraq trust in U.S. and British intelligence is so diminished that Angela Merkel is attempting to gather independent evidence about the alleged chemical attack.
That claim crumbled as Cameron was humbled in the House of Commons. After concerns raised by Cameron’s coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, and demands from the opposition Labour Party to wait for the U.N. report, the prime minister lost a crucial vote in Parliament.
Crestfallen, he admitted that he would not be able to proceed alongside the U.S. “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly,” he said.
Richard Ottaway, chairman of the House of Commons’ foreign-affairs committee and a member of Cameron’s Conservative Party, had conceded that any military intervention would not have been legal without action at the U.N. “There is no legal precedent whatsoever for an intervention of this nature without a U.N. resolution,” he told The Daily Beast.
Embarrassed by his failure, Cameron’s team lashed out at opponents of the intervention. A government source told The Times of London that Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, was “a f*****• c**• and a copper-bottomed s***” for withdrawing support for military action.
With opinion polls across Europe indicating that the public has little appetite for military intervention, Cameron told the House of Commons that the lead-up to the war in Iraq had destroyed trust in government-intelligence claims. “One thing is indisputable: The well of public opinion was well and truly poisoned by the Iraq episode and we need to understand the public skepticism,” he said.
There wasn't even room for debate in Italy, where the prime minister told the state-run RAI television that Italy would certainly not participate in any military action against Syria unless the United Nations approves. “If the United Nations doesn’t back it, Italy won’t participate,” said Enrico Letta.
The announcement could prove crucial because Italian soil was a launch point for actions in Libya, as well as Kosovo. Italy’s foreign minister, Emma Bonino, told The Daily Beast that even United Nations’ backing would not trigger the “automatic” support of Italy. She went on to say that Italy would bar any nation from using NATO bases for attacks. The Vatican, under popular Pope Francis, has also called for dialogue before action is taken.
The post-Iraq trust in U.S. and British intelligence is so diminished that Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, is attempting to gather independent evidence about the alleged chemical attack, rather than relying upon reports drawn up by her allies.
Among Syria’s neighbors, Turkey has been most vociferous in its support for a military intervention, while Lebanon, Jordan, and Iraq have called for a negotiated settlement. The Arab League said the alleged use of chemical weapons was a “heinous crime,” but it did not address foreign strikes against Syria.
In the fragile political environment in Cairo, there was widespread fear of a potential international intervention.
“There already is such rampant anti-Americanism in Egypt, along with the perception that Washington has been partial to the narrative of the Muslim Brotherhood. An attack might be depicted internally as the United States taking the side of Islamists in Syria. Anti-Americanism would be further entrenched,” said Yasser el-Shimy, a Cairo-based Egypt analyst for the International Crisis Group.
A statement on the Egyptian foreign ministry website on Thursday read: “Egypt will not take part in any military strike and strongly opposes it, in line with its opposition to any foreign military intervention in Syria.”
and...... http://news.antiwar.com/2013/08/29/doctors-without-borders-red-cross-syria-intervention-a-big-mistake/ ( US cherry picked Doctors Without Borders ( DWB ) report - excluding their numbers for dead victims ( 355 ) while trumpeting Rebel claims that thousands died. Also , note DWB did not offer any conclusions as to what toxins victims might have been exposed to.... recall the last time we saw a sexed up dossier ( Iraq . )
Two major human rights groups are chiming in on the imminent US attack on Syria today, cautioning that it is a big mistake that will make the humanitarian situation in the nation, already dire after years of sectarian civil war, all the worse.
Doctors Without Borders (MSF)in particular expressed concern that the US was using their statements about civilian deaths related to exposure to chemicals as a justification for the war, saying the statement was no substitute for a UN investigation into whether it was a chemical weapons attack or not, and that they had no solid evidence of their own on what, exactly, the civilians were exposed to.
US officials had latched on to the part of the MSF report that said victims showed symptoms of exposure to neurotoxins, though it skipped over the part that said it wasn’t sure what those toxins were, and also skimmed past the 355 dead part so it could reiterate rebel claims of thousands dead.
The Red Cross is also warning against the attacks on humanitarian grounds, saying that a US attack would further damage Syria’s infrastructure and create another new influx of displaced civilians in a region that is already overwhelmed by them.
And here is the big issue - the issue Obama and the war mongers do NOT want to debate publicly - is the US campaigning in syria in support of Al Qaeda and proponents of transitional jihadist islam ?
Al-Qaeda Links Cloud Syrian War as U.S. Seeks Clarity on Rebels
By Alaa Shahine & Donna Abu-Nasr - Aug 29, 2013 5:02 PM ET
A Turkish fighter of the jihadist group Al-Nusra Front, bearing the flag of Al-Qaeda on his jacket, center, holds position with fellow comrades on April 4, 2013 in the Syrian village of Aziza, on the southern outskirts of Aleppo.
As rebel fighters set out for Syria’s northeastern region of Reqqa two days ago, their mission was to free two of their own held by another group of insurgents rather than to take on regime forces.
Aug. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg Contributing Editor Richard Falkenrath updates the latest on Syria as the presence of U.N. weapons inspectors potentially delays any U.S.-led strike and examines what is to be gained in an attack by the U.S. and its allies. He speaks on Bloomberg Television's "Bloomberg Surveillance."
A member of the Islamist Syrian opposition group Ahrar al-Sham uses a night-vision scope to monitor the position of the Committees for the Protection of the Kurdish People, a militia set up to protect Kurdish areas in Syria, in the northeastern region of Reqqa, August 25, 2013. Photographer: Alice Martins/AFP via Getty Images
Militants from the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, an al-Qaeda affiliate, had detained the two former army officers as they accompanied a weapons shipment, according to Rami Abdurrahman, head of U.K.-based group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Mediation efforts over three days failed to secure their release, Abdurrahman said by phone yesterday.
More than two years into Syria’s civil war, radical Sunni Islamists are emerging as the prevalent force seeking to topple President Bashar al-Assad, according to military analysts in Europe and the Middle East. Their influence is among the biggest challenges facing the U.S. and allies such as Saudi Arabia as they decide which anti-Assad forces to back and how.
“Two of the most powerful insurgent factions in Syria are al-Qaeda factions,” Evan Kohlmann, senior partner atFlashpoint Partners in New York, said by telephone. “Even were the Assad regime to fall and there be some kind of takeover by rebels, there’s not a clear understanding that everyone here will be able to agree and form any kind of government.”
Libya, Iraq
The struggle echoes the tumultuous transitions of power in Arab countries rocked by revolts since 2011, as well as the sectarian conflict in Iraq following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
In Libya, armed militias that helped end Muammar al-Qaddafi’s rule have refused to lay down their weapons, obstructing the North African oil-producer’s efforts to restore order and revive the economy.
The rise of radical Islamists in Syria came as attempts by Western and Arab countries to support moderate anti-Assad groups failed to unite the opposition or bolster the rebel Free Syrian Army, led mainly by former Assad army officers. Instead, what began as a peaceful uprising turned into a war involving about 1,200 groups, according to U.S. intelligence estimates. Now, some of them have turned against each other.
Militias belonging to the biggest Kurdish party in Syria, the Democratic Union Party, have been fighting groups attached to al-Nusra Front, another group with ties to al-Qaeda. The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, or ISIL, also fought “turf wars” with Kurds after taking control of a “significant chunk” of territory in northeastern Syria, said Kohlmann.
Transnational Jihad
The two al-Qaeda affiliates support transnational Jihad, or a religious war spanning borders, and want to establish an Islamic state in Syria. Al-Nusra was also the first to claim responsibility for using suicide bombers in the war, according to the Brussels-based International Crisis Group, or ICG.
The two groups “benefit from a core contingent of foreign fighters whose training, discipline, and willingness to conduct suicide attacks provide them comparative advantages over mainstream rebel counterparts,” said Noah Bonsey, a senior Syria analyst at ICG, which tracks conflicts worldwide.
A third prominent group, Ahrar Al Sham, or the Freemen of the Levant, is best known for “its widespread resort to roadside bomb attacks,” the ICG said in a report in October.
Bonsey and Kohlmann both said militants in Syria can follow the path of Iraqi radical groups and maintain the fight in Syria even if Assad’s regime collapses.
Public Spats
The Islamists remain disunited and have engaged in public feuds over their roots and affiliation.
When ISIL leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi announced that al-Nusra was merely an extension of his Iraq-based group, al-Nusra leader Abu Muhammad al-Jolani denied the claim and said that his faction was in fact an ally of al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and not the Iraqi branch.
Divisions among the rebels and the influence of Islamists will still limit the scope of any U.S.-led military strike to punish Assad for his alleged use of chemical weapons in an Aug. 21 attack, according to the analysts. The threat of action has helped push oil prices to the highest level in two years, weakened stocks and emerging-market currencies.
“In some locations Jihadi factions could be the first to benefit from a strike,” Bonsey said. “But it’s not a simple calculation: the Jihadis have been strengthening relative to their moderate competitors in the absence of intervention.”
Abdelbaset Sieda, a member of the Syrian National Coalition, the main political opposition, said undermining the power of militants must come through “proper” international support for the Free Syrian Army.
“They’re a problem now and they will be a big challenge in the next stage,” Sieda said by phone from Istanbul. “If the Free Syrian Army is given proper support properly it will undermine them, but if the Free Syrian Army is not properly backed, these groups will thrive.”
What else might Al Qaeda have in store - via false flag attacks using their chemical weapons ?
( Was last week's chemical weapons display just a dry run ? Aleppo the big prize - for Al Qaeda ? Think about that one for a minute , why would we just assume Aleppo is next , unless someone is telling us that ? )
WASHINGTON— Obama administration officials said they believe they must respond quickly to the Syrian government's alleged use of chemical weapons, or else the regime will deploy them again in Syria's largest city, now a key stronghold of the opposition.
"Aleppo would probably be one of the likely targets," said a senior administration official.
The military strikes being considered by the administration are primarily aimed at deterring further use of chemical weapons by Syria as well as by other nations that retain substantial stocks of such weapons, such as North Korea.
"What does it say to the world if a government can get away with using the most heinous weapon, chemical weapons, on its own people?" the official said.
The concern for Aleppo is one reason behind the administration's push for a quick response, which is considered likely to consist of aerial strikes launched from outside Syrian air space. While the administration may opt for strikes carried out on a single day by cruise missiles fired from Navy warships in the Mediterranean, military officials also have presented options for a more sustained campaign of strikes over several days.
"The options are not limited to one day," said the administration official.
With U.S. officials convinced that intelligence—including intercepted communications and satellite images—definitively show that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against its own people, the U.S. and its close allies are jointly preparing for a military strike.
The administration is still debating the precise objective of the military strike, according to officials. A longer campaign of airstrikes could be aimed at degrading the regime's ability to use its chemical weapons in the future.
On Wednesday, the Arab League condemned the Syrian regime but declined to endorse a military strike. Some North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries, including Italy, have expressed doubts about a strike against Syria unless the United Nations authorizes military intervention.
U.S. officials have played down expectations that the U.N., Arab League or NATO would explicitly authorize a strike. Instead, a coalition of allied governments led by the U.S. would conduct the strikes, aimed at enforcing international law barring the use of chemical weapons.
Still, U.S. officials have been conducting urgent diplomacy, with allied governments through out the week. On Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel spoke with his German counterpart about the response. On Tuesday Mr. Hagel told the British Broadcasting Corp. that the Pentagon was "ready to go" should President Barack Obama order an attack.
Mr. Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and other officials also contacted counterparts around the world in the last day.
The administration and Pentagon have also been conducting extensive discussions on the Syrian regime's likely response to the attacks. Officials noted that not only Syria, but also Iran and the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah may retaliate.
"We believe we can manage any Syrian reprisals," said another senior administration official. "We are confident we can defeat their defenses."
Apart from being asked about transitional jihad , why we are supporting islamic fanatics aligned with Al Qaeda , whether material support of Al Qaeda constitutes treason , the White house ( so concerned about chemical weapon abuse now , might have to answer why we refused to supply gas masks and chemical weapon protective gear - when asked for them a year ago ? Why did we refuse although allegedly Rebels warned of looming chemical weapon attacks ?
Exclusive: Obama Refused to Send Gas Masks to Syrian Opposition for Over a Year
Syrian opposition groups have been asking for gas masks and chemical-weapons protection gear for more than a year—and the Obama administration decided not to supply them, Josh Rogin reports exclusively.
The Obama administration has refused to send gas masks and other chemical-weapons protection gear to Syrian opposition groups, despite numerous requests dating back more than a year and until the reported chemical-weapons attack that struck the Damascus suburbs August 21.
The residents of the Qaboun neighborhood were forced to make primitive gas masks using household items. (Syrian opposition sources)
Following the harrowing attack that left more than 1,300 dead and more than 3,000 injured in East Ghouta and other Damascus suburbs, the Obama administration is contemplating a strike on the regime of Bashar al-Assad. But Syrian civilians are still trying to cope with the tragedy and treat the wounded, who include scores of children caught sleeping when the gas was dispersed. The attack zone has a fatal shortage of gas masks, chemical-weapons protection gear, and the nerve agent antidote atropine; civilians and activists have been forced to resort to crafting makeshift masks out of everyday household items.
More chemical-weapons attacks could come, and there is now an urgent demand in rebel-held areas for gas masks and other gear. But there is also anger and frustration among opposition leaders that despite more than a year of requests to the U.S. government, the Obama administration did not send any gas masks or chemical-weapons protection gear to opposition-controlled areas.
“Almost three months ago, we received intelligence information that the regime forces may use chemical weapons in Homs,” said Abo Saleem, the directing commission secretary of the Council of Homs Province and a member of the political bureau of the Revolutionary Council of Homs, in an interview with The Daily Beast. “I forward the information to the State Department telling them we are afraid of the use of chemical weapons by the regime and we need gas masks and some training to prepare for such an attack. I got no response. Two weeks after that, the regime used chemical weapons in the old city of Homs, as we were expecting. We sent the State Department reports, but nothing happened.”
In a June email to several administration officials, viewed by The Daily Beast, Saleem begged the U.S. to provide gas masks in advance of further chemical-weapons attacks and warned that without them, the civil war in Syria would only result in more casualties.
“The repeated use of chemical weapons by the Assad army is preventing achieving any balance on the ground, and as such, it is one of the factors that is preventing reaching a fair political solution,” Saleem wrote. “The international community’s quick intervention and with all possible methods to prevent Assad from using chemical weapons against his people is an ethical and legal duty. This is not possible until there is will by the international community, and therefore, there should be no more delays in providing means of preventing its effects.”
Other activists on the ground in Syria told The Daily Beast that their requests to the Obama administration for gas masks date back more than a year and have been ignored or rejected at every turn.
One former Obama-administration official said the national-security staff reviewed a list of nonlethal humanitarian and medical aid that the U.S. could provide to opposition groups more than a year ago and ruled out providing gas masks, though thousands sit in Defense Department warehouses all over the region, left over from the war in Iraq.
“There are a lot of gas-mask kits in excess supply. It was not an issue of availability,” the former official said. “In the early days of the Syria conflict, even the smallest amount of aid to the Free Syrian Army was viewed with great concern. It was a lack of foresight by administration bureaucrats. Unfortunately, now we’re seeing the consequences.”
A senior Obama administration official confirmed to The Daily Beast on Wednesday that the White House did review the issue last year and determined it wouldn’t provide any gas masks or other chemical-weapons protective gear to the Syria opposition because of fears the equipment could get into the wrong hands.
“The provision of protective gear for the opposition sounds like an easy idea, but we need consider the potential for misuse as well,” the official said. “Such equipment requires proper training to be effective, and we need to be careful about how and to whom we provide it.”
That explanation is unlikely to satisfy several Capitol Hill offices that have been informally pressing the administration to provide the Syrian opposition with gas masks for several months. Regime-controlled areas have plenty of gas masks and are being resupplied from their allies, aides pointed out.
“This is a disgrace,” said one senior GOP Senate aide. “Even North Korea is willing to send gas masks to the side they are backing. Meanwhile, innocent civilians requesting U.S. assistance are turned away and told to face Assad’s chemical-weapons attacks on their own, defenseless. Does the administration truly believe that if al Nusra wanted to obtain gas masks for some nefarious purpose, they wouldn’t have the resources or connections to do so?”
To date, the administration has provided only one tranche of nonlethal military supplies to the Free Syrian Army, a convoy of medical kits and Meals Ready to Eat in May that were set to expire shortly after delivery. Despite indicating in June that the U.S. would provide increased military assistance to the FSA to respond to previous chemical-weapons attacks, little or no military aid from the U.S. has reached the rebels.
‘There are a lot of gas-mask kits in excess supply. It was not an issue of availability.’
Caitlin Hayden, a spokeswoman for the National Security Council, told The Daily Beast that decisions on assistance are based on what the administration believes is the best use of U.S. funding, take into account the priorities of the Syrian opposition, and are coordinated with international partners.
“We also provide significant resources to humanitarian and medical workers in Syria who have to protect themselves, respond safely, and provide care in the event of a chemical attack,” she said. “In fact, many of those exposed on August 21 have been treated in clinics that have been trained by and are using supplies from the United States.”
Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the administration’s position on not providing gas masks was becoming more and more untenable given the potential of further chemical attacks.
“The main line units wanted gas masks, but we didn’t provide them. The people in the U.S. government are going to have to answer about these programs,” he said.
So at the end of the day , after the bluster - does Obama go ahead with some type of limited attack that is something notable enough to not be a mockery ( meaning that by saying this , it's already a mockery ) ...... or does he fold his tent , put his tails between his legs and STFU ? Karl Denninger has some thoughts on today's UK vote .... http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223970
LONDON (AP) — British Prime Minister David Cameron has lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes, a stunning defeat for a government which had seemed days away from joining the U.S. in possible attacks to punish Bashar Assad's regime over an alleged chemical weapons attack.
Yeah, the Brits aren't convinced that Assad was the one who used chemical weapons.
Neither am I -- in fact, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that it was the Al-Qaida linked rebels that did so, and in fact an attack by America (or anyone else) on Assad's government would be a factual and formal act of war in support of avowed terrorists!
Now this does not mean that I like Assad. I don't; he's clearly a bastard.
But that one side of a conflict is bad doesn't make the other one good. Sometimes all "sides" of a conflict are detestable and unworthy of being feral hog food. This is one of those cases.
But there is in fact no support for action in support of Al-Qaida linked rebels in Syria (which any attack on Assad's government would be) outside of certain wamongering jackasses like McStain and Obama himself.
And as for Obama I believe one can make a cogent argument for his administration having already having directly supported insurgent forces linked to terrorists -- and the attempted cover-up of those acts is why there is no full public exposition of what happened in Benghazi.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223932 K.D's thoughts on the actions of war mongerers who think they are above the law....
If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.
....
The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.
This morning I saw John Mc(****)Stain on CNBS trying to justify what appears to be a now-inevitable attack on Syria's government.
There are several problems with this, far beyond what The Independent lays forth -- although that's enough standing alone.
The biggest problem is that while I'm quite-convinced that someone used chemical weapons in Syria I am not convinced and it certainly has not been proved that it was the Syrian Government that did so.
Never mind all the connections that appear to be present between the Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Qaida, the "rebels" in Syria and the botched operation in Benghazi, among others.
Many people throw around the word "Treason" with wild abandon, but it in fact has a rather-precise definition. Treason is the act of waging war against one's own nation or consciously and purposefully aiding its enemies in a time of war.
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
If this attack goes forward then I believe there is a clean argument that McCain, Obama and every other member of the Congress and military who willingly and knowingly participates or permits, with the ability to refuse or stop said attack, has committed this crime.
Al-Qaida is a declared enemy of the United States. This is not a matter of speculation, it is by their own name, hand and actions, including the attacks of 9/11and those that both preceded and followed that event.
It is that specific threat that has led both President Bush and Obama to extend the formal state of emergency that has existed since 9/11 and which extends to this day. Absent that justification the declared state of emergency is unconstitutional and by itself a violation of the oath of office and would constitute levying war on the citizens of this nation.
I believe a clean case can be made that arming these "rebels", along with what was going on in Benghazi, has already crossed that line.
But attacking the Syrian Government, irrespective of the justification, would absolutely constitute providing material aid and comfort to the militantswho are known to be Al-Qaida affiliated.
If, as I suspect, it turns out that it was the Al-Qaida-linked rebels who actually used the chemical weapons then we will have joined a war on the side of Al-Qaida after they used chemical munitions!
But what if I'm wrong about that? What if Syria's government used the chemical weapons instead?
Then we're still providing material aid and comfort to a declared enemy of the United States.
This one can't be justified folks, no matter which way the facts on the ground fall.
Ironic the constitutional law scholar doesn't follow the law.....
Paul says that only Congress can declare war on Syria.
Kit Daniels Infowars.com 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.
“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.”
Get your popcorn ready - unilateral war to start Saturday ? Before Congress comes back from vacation ? With no attempt to address the nation - just talking points distributed to members of the " Uniparty " lackeys ?
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.
Doctors Without Borders (MSF)in particular expressed concern that the US was using their statements about civilian deaths related to exposure to chemicals as a justification for the war, saying the statement was no substitute for a UN investigation into whether it was a chemical weapons attack or not, and that they had no solid evidence of their own on what, exactly, the civilians were exposed to.
No comments:
Post a Comment