Off - topic for a second - why isn't the Fukushima debacle even discussed as a matter of US national security ?
http://enenews.com/experts-fukushima-literally-matter-national-security-becoming-rapidly-international-issue-be-failing-japan-govt-dealing-crisis
Okay , back to the False Flag , wag the dog , limited kinetic action with no mocking allowed
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/guest-post-wheres-congress-syria
( Contrast between Uk and US is eye - opening ! Congress should have been called back last week ! )
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 12:18 -0400
How carefully have attack plans been vetted - considering Assad has been given days to prepare , have we considered " traps " he may have set for the US ?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-barracks-idUSBRE97T0N820130830
( Hope these attacks are thought through very carefully - we may wind up being not just Al Qaeda's Air Force , but Assad executioners to boot ! )
and is Obama getting cold feet ?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/obama-and-aides-signal-caution-delay-on-syrian-response/
all over the map.......
http://www.infowars.com/john-kerry-negotiations-to-continue-in-syrian-chemical-attack/
( WTF stuff from John Kerry ! )
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/25-quotes-about-coming-war-syria-every-american-should-see
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/30/2013 20:18 -0400
http://enenews.com/experts-fukushima-literally-matter-national-security-becoming-rapidly-international-issue-be-failing-japan-govt-dealing-crisis
Okay , back to the False Flag , wag the dog , limited kinetic action with no mocking allowed
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/guest-post-wheres-congress-syria
( Contrast between Uk and US is eye - opening ! Congress should have been called back last week ! )
Guest Post: Where's Congress on Syria?
Submitted by Robert W. Merry via The National Interest,
Where’s Congress? That’s the question that should haunt the American people in the wake of President Obama’s apparent decision to get their country into another Mideast war. In the long history of the American experience, matters of war and peace have always been hotly debated. And those debates traditionally have been most intense and concentrated in Congress.
Remember Arkansas senator William Fulbright’s famous hearings on the Vietnam War, beginning in 1966. He was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and he shared the Democratic Party label with his president, Lyndon Johnson, who had perpetrated the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. But that shared party label didn’t prevent Fulbright from going after the president with these words at the start of his hearings:
Under our system, Congress, and especially the Senate, shares responsibility with the President for making our Nation’s foreign policy. This war, however, started and continues as a Presidential war in which Congress, since the fraudulent Gulf of Tonkin episode, has not played a significant role. The purpose of these hearings is to develop the best advice and greater public understanding of the policy alternatives available and possible congressional action to end American participation in the war.
Clearly, Fulbright wasn’t messing around as he thrust himself into the war controversybased on his standing in a Congress charged with joint responsibility for America’s wars.
Or recall North Dakota’s Republican senator Gerald Nye from the 1930s, chairman of the Senate Munitions Investigating Subcommittee. A rustic progressive who advocated the nationalization of what he considered troublesome industries, he also was a tireless friend to thousands of German-born Dakota farmers still angry about America’s role in the Great War. Nye wanted the country to avoid any further foreign conflicts, and so he attacked the forces he viewed as promoters of war—the big arms manufacturers, which he called “merchants of death,” and international bankers who financed the purchase of armaments and then, as Nye viewed it, fomented war to ensure a return on their investments.
Nye’s headline-grabbing hearings fostered the Neutrality Act of 1935, which placed America on the sidelines of all international conflicts. The legislation required the president to proclaim the existence of any foreign wars and prohibited American vessels from carrying arms to or for belligerents in such wars. It was popular at the time largely because of widespread lingering feelings among Americans that the World War I adventure had been ill-conceived. Whatever Nye’s contemporaries may have thought of his legislation or the thinking behind it, no one could doubt that this driven politician intended to wield all the power that the Constitution bestowed upon him as a member of the Senate.
Consider also Missouri’s Democratic senator Thomas Hart Benton, who served his state and party from 1821 to 1851—and demonstrated throughout those three decades a fierce independence tied to a zest for political pugilism. Although an early political ally of President James K. Polk, Benton balked when Polk sought from Congress authorization for war with Mexico that could include an invasion of the southern neighbor. He maneuvered cleverly in the Senate in opposition to Polk’s interests and threatened to unleash a full-bore opposition campaign, which could have emboldened the Whig opposition and destroyed the president’s war resolution. In the end he came around, but only after his good friend, Francis Blair, warned that opposition to the war could render him a “ruined man.”
What these men had in common was that they mattered. And they mattered because they were willing to employ as much legislative power as they could muster to influence the big national debate before the country - and thus influence the course of events. Such politicians have nearly always emerged whenever the big guns of the American military began to roar in earnest.
Until recently. Now we have a president who declares in word and deed that war decisions, as artificially defined by him as something short of actual war, are exclusively within his constitutional domain. And we have a Congress that shows no serious inclination to challenge that claim of prerogative and power. This is a very serious - and potentially calamitous - development in American history.
This is not to say that men such as Fulbright, Nye and Benton - and many more who followed their path - were entirely correct in their view of foreign policy and the war decisions of their time. But they served the highly valuable purpose of ensuring that matters of war and peace would get serious attention, generate robust debate, and thus enlighten the American people about the geopolitical stakes involved. That’s what’s missing today.
In fairness, there have been some expressions of discomfort coming from Congress. Washington’s Democratic Rep. Adam Smith, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, said that, while he’s still waiting to see what the administration has to say about a potential strike, he is “concerned” about how effective such an action could be and “worried” that it could draw the United States into a wider Mideast war. And House Speaker John Boehner, the Ohio Republican, sent a letter to Obama that seemed to be designed as a shot across the president’s bow.He asked for a “clear, unambiguous explanation of how military action—which is a means, not a policy—will secure U.S. objectives and how it fits into your overall policy.” Separately, 116 House members—ninety-eight Republicans and eighteen Democrats—sent a letter to Obama saying he shouldn’t attack Syria’s government forces without congressional approval.
But these are largely pro forma expressions and actions, not efforts to force these crucial war-and-peace issues into the cauldron of unavoidable congressional consideration.The Fulbright and Nye hearings forced every member of Congress to take a stand, one way or the other, on the matter at hand. Benton threatened not merely to oppose his president in expression but to muster sufficient opposition to defeat the man in his most frightful hour of need.
If Boehner really wanted to give Obama pause in his push toward another military action in the Middle East, he would foster a resolution declaring a sense of the chamber that the president of the United States must get congressional approval for any such action. He would then bring that resolution to the floor, forcing a real congressional debate (of the kind that that tired institution rarely sees these days) that would rivet the American people and place upon members the onus of actually taking a stand—not just on the matter of presidential prerogative but on the policy itself.
Now that would be an approach worthy of the American political tradition. But no one should bet the 401K fund that that will actually unfold as Washington slouches toward another overseas action that has no real strategic significance, has very little pretense of any strategic significance, and is designed primarily to teach a lesson to a once-proud national leader whose country lies in tatters, whose life is in peril, and whose standing in history has been reduced to that of a monster. History has dealt Bashar al-Assad far more devastating lessons than Barack Obama or his country could ever administer. Meanwhile, the strategic ramifications of U.S. military strikes against Syrian targets cry out for serious deliberation and analysis. Will such deliberation and analysis emerge? Not bloody likely.
How carefully have attack plans been vetted - considering Assad has been given days to prepare , have we considered " traps " he may have set for the US ?
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/30/us-syria-crisis-barracks-idUSBRE97T0N820130830
( Hope these attacks are thought through very carefully - we may wind up being not just Al Qaeda's Air Force , but Assad executioners to boot ! )
(Reuters) - Military sites in Syria are packed with soldiers who have been effectively imprisoned by their superiors due to doubts about their loyalty, ex-soldiers say, making them possible casualties in any U.S.-led air strikes.
Thousands of loyal security forces and militia, meanwhile, have moved into schools and residential buildings in Damascus, mixing with the civilian population in the hope of escaping a Western strike, according to residents and opposition activists.
U.S. President Barack Obama says a "tailored, limited" strike would send a strong message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad that use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated after an alleged attack last week killed hundreds of people.
Officials in Washington, rejecting comparisons with the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, say any campaign would likely include cruise missiles from U.S. ships in the Mediterranean, last only days and target military installations including air defenses.
They may, however, involve casualties among the Sunni Muslim majority that has led the revolt against Assad.
Some military and security bases are used as prisons for civilian detainees, human rights groups say, and rebels who have fled their posts say many soldiers of a low rank are imprisoned on military sites because they are Sunnis.
Most of the commanding officers are from Assad's Alawite sect, an off-shoot of Shi'ite Islam, and fear their subordinates will defect, flee their posts or coordinate with rebel units, defectors say.
"Some soldiers are physically locked up in rooms and others are given small jobs to do around the base but their weapons are taken from them. They are not taken out of the base," said an ex-soldier who, until three months ago, worked at an artillery base on the outskirts of Damascus.
He said he was able to flee his post after he became ill and was taken to hospital, where he escaped and hoped his superiors would not report his disappearance due to the chaos of war.
The man, who spoke by telephone, asked to remain anonymous to protect his family who live in government-held territory. He said that trapped soldiers would likely die in military strikes.
Also asking to remain anonymous, a rebel from the northern province of Idlib said his unit was allowed to exit the barracks to fight on the frontlines of Aleppo, but under duress and the threat of execution for desertion.
"One day I was fighting and I was separated from my unit. The revolutionaries called out to me and I crossed over to them."
"I am worried that the strikes will hit the imprisoned soldiers," he said, but added that he also hoped a strike on Assad's military would prevent further deaths.
One former senior U.S. official said reports of Syrian soldiers being held by their superiors as possible human shields underscored the importance of choosing the appropriate targets for cruise missile strikes.
"It is a really hard problem," said the former official. "Any strikes will be claimed by the regime to have killed innocents or the wrong people."
IMPRISONMENT
Since civil war broke out in 2011, conscripts have no longer been allowed to take annual leave and their two-year military service has been extended indefinitely, defectors say.
The army would rather incur the cost of imprisoning Sunni soldiers than run the risk of defection, say rebels, who estimate thousands of Syrian Sunnis are held at military sites.
Many talk of a brother, friend or family member who has not been heard from and is suspected of being trapped.
It was not clear whether the bases where they say soldiers are held included possible U.S. targets, and Pentagon officials were not immediately available for comment. The U.S. military says it works hard to avoid civilian and unintended casualties.
Opposition activists say that in anticipation of U.S. strikes, the army has started moving personnel and military equipment, including Scud missiles, to protect supplies.
Many of those working in secret police compounds that dominate the capital have also moved - into schools and civilian buildings, residents, diplomats and opposition activists said.
A woman living in the western Kfar Souseh district, which is home to Military Intelligence and other security compounds, said security personnel armed with AK-47s rifles and carrying radios had taken up residence in the basement of her apartment bloc.
"They are loudly playing the song 'We Are Your Army Bashar,'" she said. "Imagine if you are living somewhere for years and 60 gunmen you don't know suddenly barge into your building and live there," she said.
Activist Moaz al-Shami, who is compiling a list of schools where security and pro-Assad militia have moved in, said they concentrated in Baramkeh, Tishreen Park, Sha'lan, Abu Rummaneh, Mezze and Malki, among the most heavily fortified districts of the capital and home to many top army and intelligence officers.
"If those schools get hit the risk to civilians around them could be greater and the regime can accuse the United States of indiscriminate bombing and targeting civilians," Shami said.
Diplomats said rebel raids and fighting near key roads had blocked a wider evacuation of the hundreds of security and army bases that dot the country of 22 million, where Assad's late father imposed his autocratic dynasty four decades ago.
Khaled Saleh, a spokesman for the opposition Syrian National Coalition, said as well as personnel movements out of military sites, prisoners had been put in barracks as human shields.
"The Assad regime is starting to move large numbers of prisoners into army barracks. Over the last three days, they are moving soldiers into schools and hospitals," he said in Istanbul.
Reuters cannot independently confirm Saleh's report, which he says is based on eyewitness accounts, or those of the ex-soldiers, due to security and reporting restrictions in Syria. Attempts to reach Syrian officials for comment on this story were unsuccessful.
Peter Splinter, Amnesty International's representative to the U.N. in Geneva, said his rights group did not have confirmation prisoners were being moved but was very concerned about thousands of detainees already in military and security bases that may be targeted.
He said authorities had partly transformed some military bases into detention facilities since the start of the uprising because of the large number of arrests.
The conflict started with a peaceful pro-democracy movement against four decades of Assad family rule but became armed after a crackdown by security forces. Attacks have included incendiary and cluster bombs, as well as summary executions, and the United Nations says 100,000 people have been killed.
and is Obama getting cold feet ?
http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/30/obama-and-aides-signal-caution-delay-on-syrian-response/
President Barack Obama and his aides are signaling they won’t rapidly
decide on a response to Syria’s chemical-weapons attack, even as they’re using dramatic language to build domestic and international support for some form of military action.
decide on a response to Syria’s chemical-weapons attack, even as they’re using dramatic language to build domestic and international support for some form of military action.
They’re also signaling great reluctance to get further involved in Syria’s brutal civil war, and a clear desire to get approval from leery legislators in Congress.
But any push to get congressional approval will also allow Obama to walk away from the fight while blaming Congress for his inaction after the Syrian government’s Aug. 21 nerve-gas attack on civilians in rebel-held areas in Damascus.
Obama also said “the world” has a duty to act, but didn’t say the United States has a duty to act, and didn’t say when he will decide on a response.
“This kind of attack is a challenge to the world,” Obama told reporters in an an afternoon statement, adding that “I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm” against the use of chemical weapons.
“I mean what I said — the world has an obligation to make sure we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons… [and] I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken.”
He coupled those vague statements with strong rhetoric apparently about Syrian’s Aug. 21 gas attack.
“We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale… This kind of attack threaten our national security interests by violating well-established norms against the use of chemical weapons… and it increases the risk that chemical weapons will be used in the future,” he said at the meeting.
,” he said at the meeting.
Obama’s deputies also downplayed any expectation of imminent action.
of imminent action.
“President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines, based on our values and our interests,” Secretary John Kerry said in a midday statement.
and our interests,” Secretary John Kerry said in a midday statement.
Kerry’s statement included strong rhetoric urging action, but its impact was muted by Obama’s decision to delegate its delivery to the former Massachusetts Senator. Also, Obama did not ask the Secretary of Defense to deliver a statement.
“Ultimately, [Obama] will make the best decision for the best interests of the United States on his timeline,” said a White House official during an early afternoon background interview.
official during an early afternoon background interview.
Officials also signaled reluctance to get involved in Syria’s war.
“We don’t believe there is a military solution to the conflict in Syria… [we want] a political solution in which [Bashir] al-Assad leave power,” said the White House official.
to the conflict in Syria… [we want] a political solution in which [Bashir] al-Assad leave power,” said the White House official.
“We know that after a decade of conflict, the American people are tired of war. Believe me, I am, too. But fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility,” Kerry said.
“We are not contemplating an open-ended military intervention, or an intervention to impose regime change,” he added.
“We also know that [Obama] has said, very clearly, that whatever decision he makes in Syria it will bear no resemblance to Afghanistan, Iraq or even Libya,” said Kerry.
“It will not involve any boots on the ground. It will not be open-ended. And it will not assume responsibility for a civil war that is already well underway,” said Kerry.
“The primary objective is to have a diplomatic process that can resolve this through negotiation, because we know there is no ultimate military solution” to the Syrian war, said Kerry.
White House officials also sought to play up a role for Congress, even though House leaders are not demanding that any action be delayed until they decide whether to support any attack.
“We will continue talking to the Congress, talking to our allies, and most importantly, talking to the American people,” Kerry said.
to the Congress, talking to our allies, and most importantly, talking to the American people,” Kerry said.
“We will continue to reach out to Congress on a daily basis,” said the White House official.
GOP leaders have not urged a quick decision for or against a strike.
decision for or against a strike.
“If the president believes this information makes a military response imperative, it is his responsibility to explain to Congress and the American people the objectives, strategy, and legal basis for any potential action,” said a midday statement from the office of House Speaker John Boehner. “We – and the American people – look forward to more answers from the White House,” said the statement.
all over the map.......
http://www.infowars.com/john-kerry-negotiations-to-continue-in-syrian-chemical-attack/
( WTF stuff from John Kerry ! )
John Kerry: Negotiations to Continue Over Syrian Chemical Attack
“Many friends stand ready to respond”
Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013
Secretary of State John Kerry opened his speech Friday by describing the horrors victims of the chemical weapon attack suffered, including twitching, spasms and difficulty breathing.
Photo: Riana via Wikimedia Commons
Attempting to drive the point home, Kerry referenced a photograph used by the BBC illustrating a child jumping over hundreds of dead bodies covered in white shrouds. The photo was meant to depict victims who allegedly succumbed to the effects of chemical weapons via Assad’s regime.
However, it was later exposed the photograph used had been taken in 2003 in Iraq. It was not related to Syrian deaths whatsoever andwas later retracted.
The Secretary of State announced the US will continue “negotiations” with Congress and the American people.
The decision came after UK Parliament voted no to military actionagainst Syria Thursday evening, refusing to accompany the US in a missile strike against the Middle Eastern nation.
Germany also voiced their opposition to Syria military interventionsaying they have “not considered it” and “will not be considering it.”
France, however, released statements saying they intend to act alongside the US in an attempt to “punish” Syria for the alleged chemical weapons attack.
Despite numerous allies’ refusal to get involved, Kerry argued “Many friends stand ready to respond.”
Kerry alleged that not just one, but several chemical weapon attacks have occurred. The attack last week in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children. However, Infowars reveals that the “international aid group Doctors Without Borders reported 355 people were killed in the attack last week, not the wildly exaggerated figure cited by Kerry.”
The Secretary of State said the US government has “high confidence” Assad carried out the attack, affirming military intervention would be “common sense.”
He referred to the attack as an “indiscriminate, unconscious and horrific act,” claiming a Syrian senior regime official admitted responsibility. However, he offered no hard evidence backing this claim.
While Kerry blamed Syria for blocking and delaying the UN chemical weapons investigation, an Infowars report revealed 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.”
“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,” reported Infowars.
Unsurprisingly, Kerry failed to mention US’s true position of funding the Syrian rebels, leaving the uninformed public incompetent to form an accurate opinion.
The good news is for the first time in over two hundred years a “British Prime Minister lost a vote on war since 1782, when Parliament effectively conceded American independence by voting against further fighting to crush the colony’s rebellion,” reported Reuters.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/30/us-middle-east-policy-incoherent/
US Middle East policy – incoherent
POSTED AT 5:21 PM ON AUGUST 30, 2013 BY BRUCE MCQUAIN
And frankly, I think that’s a nice way of describing it. James Picht declares that Barak Obama is the worst foreign policy president ever. Rumor has it Jimmy Carter is all smiles. Pict says our Middle Eastern policy is incoherent. He lays his argument out this way:
Obama’s botched efforts in the Middle East serve to remind us that there’s no situation so bad that dedicated ineptitude can’t make it worse. His administration team has done just that. American foreign policy goals in the region are now completely unclear.Obama’s dithering in Egypt has antagonized everyone there, has been interpreted as support of deposed President Mohamed Morsi, and has pushed Egypt directly into Russia’s embrace. No one knows whether our goal in Egypt is stability or democracy. We appear to back Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood, which is backed also by Hamas, which in turn is supported by Iran, but our support appears completely irrelevant. Egypt’s new leaders have concluded they can safely ignore us.The fiasco in Syria is worse. Is our goal there regime change? Is the goal still regime change even if that puts jihadists in charge? The Syrian rebels are supported by al-Qaeda and Hamas, and opposed by Iran, which with Russia supports Assad. Where exactly in all this do our interests lie? Are we really on the side of al-Qaeda?Do we intend to back the monarchy in Bahrain, no matter how repressive it grows, in order to keep the base that houses our Fifth Fleet? Bahrain will eventually explode, but American support of the monarchy gives it free reign to repress the freedom movement and clamp down the pressure-cooker lid even more tightly.The Obama Administration has dissembled its way across the Middle East, leaving enemies and allies alike uncertain of our intentions. Russia, China and Iran have been much more transparent. Saudi Arabia immediately gave Egypt’s General Sisi $12 billion in aid after the army deposed Morsi, the first democratically elected leader in Egypt’s 5,000-year history. Obama in contrast withdrew from joint military exercises but seemed uncertain whether to cut other aid.Russia has clearly backed Syria’s Assad, while Obama has dithered over a military response to nerve gas attacks against civilians. If there is a response, it now seems designed to punish Assad without actually hurting him.After months of tacitly supporting the rebels, the administration seems desperate to avoid hitting important military targets when it punishes Assad. And to the horror of American military leadership, the administration has planned its attack in public, all but sending Assad a map of likely targets.
As a result, Obama has come to be more disliked in the Middle East than his predecessor:
The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project finds that support for the United States is lower now in Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan than it was in 2008. Approval for Obama’s policies was only 15 percent in Muslim countries last spring; what that rate would be now in Egypt and Syria is anyone’s guess, but a safe guess would be “lower.”
Truly amazing. It is hard to imagine the level of incompetence that is required for our foreign policy to be in such disarray. But there it is.
Charles Krauthammer calls what is going on a “complete humiliation” for Obama and the US:
“This is a complete humiliation for the Obama administration,” Krauthammer said. “Forget about the narrative of what Obama wants to do, which I think is a bad idea, but let’s assume it’s a good idea. This involves the elementary conduct of international diplomacy, trying to get some allies aboard so you don’t act unilaterally.“And here is Obama trying to gather an ally or two for a pinprick and he gets nothing,” he added.Krauthammer then questioned what officials were thinking this week when they leaked information about possible attacks in Syria.“Did nobody actually think to check on the allies?” he said. “I mean, these are guys who couldn’t organize a three-car funeral.”
Basic or elementary diplomacy seems beyond this bunch. And leadership is non-existent. Instead we get an administration that seems to think that just because they decide something has to happen, it is the duty of allies to do our bidding. That premise was rudely shot down in the UK yesterday. When your coalition is you and France, you’ve failed Diplomacy 101.
But it isn’t much different than how the administration acts domestically. At every turn and in reaction to any minor roadblock or setback, the administration is likely to whip out an executive order or just ignore the law to do what it wishes. And while that may be somewhat effective here, in the international arena, they just don’t play that game.
~McQ
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/08/30/kerry-the-un-cant-do-anything-so-well-go-it-alone/
Kerry: The UN can’t do anything, so we’ll go it alone
POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON AUGUST 30, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY
Old and busted, John Kerry edition: Protecting America against terrorism requires us to pass a “global test” to prove that the threat really exists:
No president, though all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.But if and when you do it, Jim, you have to do it in a way that passes the test, that passes the global test where your countrymen, your people understand fully why you’re doing what you’re doing and you can prove to the world that you did it for legitimate reasons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGnbsolh6Js
New hotness, John Kerry edition: The UN and the global community are totally dysfunctional, so the US should just act on its own:
So now that we know what we know, the question we must all be asking is: What will we do? Let me emphasize, President Obama, we in the United States, we believe in the United Nations. And we have great respect for the brave inspectors who endured regime gunfire and obstructions to their investigation.But as Ban Ki-moon, the secretary general, has said again and again, the U.N. investigation will not affirm who used these chemical weapons. That is not the mandate of the U.N. investigation. They will only affirm whether such weapons were used. By the definition of their own mandate, the U.N. can’t tell us anything that we haven’t shared with you this afternoon or that we don’t already know.And because of the guaranteed Russian obstructionism of any action through the U.N. Security Council, the U.N. cannot galvanize the world to act as it should. So let me be clear. We will continue talking to the Congress, talking to our allies, and most importantly, talking to the American people.President Obama will ensure that the United States of America makes our own decisions on our own timelines, based on our values and our interests.
Golly, that sounds a lot like … what George W. Bush said in 2002-3, too. And when Bush said it, he put together a coalition comprised of dozens of nations for the invasion of Iraq, including large numbers of British troops and no small amount from other European nations, even with Russia, China, and France balking. Barack Obama can’t even get the British to come along on long-range air strikes, and the only other partner we seem to have now is France. And unlike Barack Obama and Kerry, Bush did go to the UN to at least force a vote on ending Saddam Hussein’s depredations, which included using chemical weapons to massacre his own people.
As it happens, I agree with John Kerry, and have for a very long time. While the UN Security Council is a useful platform for multilateral diplomacy, it’s not a global government, nor should we treat it as such. The US should always act in its own interests, and do its best to get our allies on board for that action. The UN General Assembly is just plain useless. Glad to see the nation’s leading liberals (and internationalists) finally acknowledging that fact — along with the other fact implicitly acknowledged in this speech, which is that the 2009 “reset” with Russia was an embarrassing farce and that the issues with Russia wasn’t the fault of the Bush administration.
Otherwise, Kerry delivered a very forceful speech on behalf of intervention in Syria. Why didn’t Barack Obama make this speech? Why doesn’t the President make this case himself to the American people, and especially to Congress? Since this entire exercise seems designed to rescue his own credibility, it’s more than just a little strange to have Kerry out disdaining the global test he once espoused while Obama sits quietly in the White House.
Update: Count House Armed Services Committee chair Buck McKeon among the unimpressed:
Has Iraq shackled American power?
Shocking Story That Could Derail Attack on Syria
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013
Infowars.com
August 30, 2013
Respected 20 year Middle Eastern reporter and Associated Press, BBC and NPR correspondent Dale Gavrak was told by Syrian rebels that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident in Ghouta.
Will the mainstream media ignore a story that could derail the march to war?
Original: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack (Back up copy here)
and....
Don't Show Obama This Report About Who Really Is Behind The Syrian Chemical Attacks
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/30/2013 10:33 -0400
As we showed mere days ago, it appears the truth of who the real puppet-master in the Middle-East is becoming plainer to see. The incredibly frank discussion between Saudi's spy-chief Prince Bandar and Russia's Putin exposed a much deeper plot is afoot and the following details from the actual people on the ground in the chemically-attacked region of Syria suggest Obama is playing right into the Saudi's plan. While Obama is 'certain' that the chemical attacks took place on al-Assad's orders, as MPN reports, "from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe thatcertain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack."
The narrative for public consumption is well-known and quite clear - it was all as-Assad's fault. And yet...
... from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep whilestoring their weapons in tunnels.Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.
About the report authors: Dale Gavlak is a Middle East correspondent for Mint Press News and the Associated Press. Gavlak has been stationed in Amman, Jordan for the Associated Press for over two decades. An expert in Middle Eastern Affairs, Gavlak currently covers the Levant region of the Middle East for AP, National Public Radio and Mint Press News, writing on topics including politics, social issues and economic trends. Dale holds a M.A. in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Chicago. Contact Dale at dgavlak@mintpressnews.com Yahya Ababneh is a Jordanian freelance journalist and is currently working on a master’s degree in journalism, He has covered events in Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Russia and Libya. His stories have appeared on Amman Net, Saraya News, Gerasa News and elsewhere.
For those who may have forgotten, here are the details that were exposed a few days ago...
what are some of the stunning disclosures by the Saudis? First this:Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. 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. 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.”It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime." Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.Since we know all about this, it means no more talks, an implicit warning that the Chechens operating in proximity to Sochi may just become a loose cannon (with Saudi's blessing of course), and that about a month ago "there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate." Four weeks later, we are on the edge of all out war, which may involve not only the US and Europe, but most certainly Saudi Arabia and Russia which automatically means China as well. Or, as some may call it, the world.And all of it as preordained by a Saudi prince, and all in the name of perpetuating the hegemony of the petrodollar.
Again we remind: Russia and Saudi Arabia account for 25% of global oil production, but far more importantly absent the Qatari natgas(and a potential pipeline crossing under a receptive Syrian regime - i.e., not Assad - and going into Turkey), Europe will remain beholden to every rate-hiking whim by Putin and Gazpromia.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=223990
Sorry, But No (Syria)
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/25-quotes-about-coming-war-syria-every-american-should-see
25 Quotes About The Coming War With Syria That Every American Should See
- Barack Obama
- Dennis Kucinich
- Iran
- Iraq
- Israel
- Joe Biden
- Kucinich
- Middle East
- Mohammad
- national security
- New York Times
- Obama Administration
- Ron Paul
- Saudi Arabia
Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,
If Barack Obama is going to attack Syria, he is going to do it without the support of the American people, without the approval of Congress, without the approval of the United Nations, and without the help of the British. Now that the British Parliament has voted against a military strike, the Obama administration is saying that it may take "unilateral action" against Syria.
But what good would "a shot across Syria's bow" actually do? A "limited strike" is not going to bring down the Assad regime and it is certainly not going to end the bloody civil war that has been raging inside Syria. Even if the U.S. eventually removed Assad, the al-Qaeda affiliated rebels that would take power would almost certainly be even worse than Assad.
Even in the midst of this bloody civil war, the rebels have taken the time and the effort tomassacre entire Christian villages. Why is Barack Obama so obsessed with helping such monsters? There is no good outcome in Syria. The Assad regime is absolutely horrible and the rebels are even worse. Why would we want the U.S. military to get involved in such a mess?
It isn't as if it is even possible for the U.S. military to resolve the conflict that is going on in that country. At the core, the Syrian civil war is about Sunni Islam vs. Shia Islam. It is a conflict that goes back well over a thousand years.
Assad is Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni Muslims. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict, because they would love to see the Assad regime eliminated and a Sunni government come to power in Syria. On the other side, Iran is absolutely determined to not allow that to happen.
Saudi Arabia and Qatar have no problem with using Sunni terrorists (al-Qaeda) to achieve their political goals. And as a very important ally of the Saudis, the U.S. has been spending a lot of money to train and equip the "rebels" in Syria.
But there was a problem. The Syrian government has actually been defeating the rebels. So something had to be done.
If it could be made to look like the Assad regime was using chemical weapons, that would give the U.S. government the "moral justification" that it needed to intervene militarily on the side of the rebels. In essence, it would be a great excuse for the U.S. to be able to go in and do the dirty work of the Saudis for them.
So that is where we are today. The justification for attacking Syria that the Obama administration is giving us goes something like this...
-Chemical weapons were used in Syria.-The rebels do not have the ability to use chemical weapons.-Therefore it must have been the Assad regime that was responsible for using chemical weapons.-The U.S. military must punish the use of chemical weapons to make sure that it never happens again.
Unfortunately for the Obama administration, the world is not buying it. In fact, people are seeing right through this charade.
The U.S. government spends $52,000,000,000a year on "intelligence", but apparently our intelligence community absolutely refuses to see the obvious. WND has been able to uncovercompelling evidence that the rebels in Syria have used chemical weapons repeatedly, and yet government officials continue to insist over and over that no such evidence exists and that we need to strike Syria immediately.
Shouldn't we at least take a little bit of time to figure out who is actually in the wrong before we start letting cruise missiles fly?
Because the potential downside of an attack against Syria is absolutely massive. As I wrote about the other day, if we attack Syria we have the potential of starting World War 3 in the Middle East.
We could find ourselves immersed in an endless war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah which would be far more horrible than the Iraq war ever was. It would essentially be a war with Shia Islam itself, and that would be a total nightmare.
If you are going to pick a fight with those guys, you better pack a lunch. They fight dirty and they are absolutely relentless. They will never forget and they will never, ever forgive.
A full-blown war with Syria, Iran and Hezbollah would be a fight to the death, and they would not hesitate to strike soft targets all over the United States. I don't think that most Americans have any conception of what that could possibly mean.
If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see...
1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 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."
2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: "The president has no constitutional authority ... to take this nation to war ... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."
3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: "Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution."
4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: "I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America."
5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: "While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack."
6. The New York Times: "American officials said Wednesday there was no 'smoking gun' that directly links President to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation."
7. U.S. Senator Rand Paul: "The war in Syria has no clear national security connection to the United States and victory by either side will not necessarily bring in to power people friendly to the United States."
8. U.S. Senator Tim Kaine: "I definitely believe there needs to be a vote."
9. Donald Rumsfeld: "There really hasn’t been any indication from the administration as to what our national interest is with respect to this particular situation."
10. Robert Fisk: "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."
11. Former congressman Dennis Kucinich: "So what, we’re about to become al-Qaeda’s air force now?"
12. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem: "We have two options: either to surrender, or to defend ourselves with the means at our disposal. The second choice is the best: we will defend ourselves."
13. A Syrian Army officer: "We have more than 8,000 suicide martyrs within the Syrian army, ready to carry out martyrdom operations at any moment to stop the Americans and the British. I myself am ready to blow myself up against US aircraft carriers to stop them attacking Syria and its people."
14. Khalaf Muftah, a senior Ba'ath Party official: "We have strategic weapons and we’re capable of responding."
15. An anonymous senior Hezbollah source: "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plungeLebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel."
16. Ali Larjiani, the speaker of the Iranian parliament: "...the country which has been destroyed by the terrorists during the past two years will not sustain so much damage as the warmongers will receive in this war."
17. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: "Starting this fire will be like a spark in a large store of gunpowder, with unclear and unspecified outcomes and consequences"
18. General Mohammad Ali Jafari, chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards: (an attack on Syria) "means the immediate destruction of Israel."
19. Israeli President Shimon Peres: "Israel is not and has not been involved in the civil war in Syria, but if they try to hurt us, we will respond with full force."
20. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: "We are not part of the civil war in Syria, but if we identify any attempt whatsoever to harm us, we will respond and we will respond in strength."
21. The Jerusalem Post: "The lines between Hezbollah and the Syrian regime are so blurred that Israel will hold Damascus responsible if Hezbollah bombards Israel in the coming days, Israeli officials indicated on Wednesday."
22. Ron Paul: "The danger of escalation with Russia is very high"
23. Pat Buchanan: "The sole beneficiary of this apparent use of poison gas against civilians in rebel-held territory appears to be the rebels, who have long sought to have us come in and fight their war."
24. Retired U.S. General James Mattis: "We have no moral obligation to do the impossible and harm our children’s future because we think we just have to do something."
25. Syrian refugee Um Ahmad: "Isn't it enough, all the violence and fighting that we already have in the country, now America wants to bomb us, too?"
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/white-house-syria-timetable-96061.html
( Three Stooges of Syria Policy ? )
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/white-house-syria-timetable-96061.html
( Three Stooges of Syria Policy ? )
White House officials offered few details and no timeline for a possible attack on Syria during a 90-minute conference call on Thursday evening for members of Congress, according to a congressional source who participated in the call.
The call appears to have done little to change anybody’s mind. Members issued statements afterward reiterating their long-held views on Syria.
Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said the White House should seek international support for “limited, targeted strikes” against Syria, once again urging the administration to “increase the military pressure on the [Bashar] Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition.”
Meanwhile, the committee’s ranking Republican, Sen. Jim Inhofe, was undeterred in his opposition to military operations in Syria until there’s a clear plan to pay for them.
“As I have said before, no red line should have even been drawn without first preparing a strategic plan and assessing our resources,” the Oklahoma Republican said following the unclassified briefing.
“The administration owes it to Congress and to the American people to lay out how they will fund their military action,” Inhofe said. “Is it going to be more furloughs?”
On the call, White House officials told lawmakers the president is still weighing his options on Syria, according to the congressional source. Several officials were on the call representing the administration, including Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, Secretary of State John Kerry, White House National Security Adviser Susan Rice, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Sandy Winnefeld.
In a statement, the White House said 15 members of Congress asked questions during the call and that it would continue reaching out to lawmakers.
“The views of Congress are important to the president’s decision-making process, and we will continue to engage with members as the president reaches a decision on the appropriate U.S. response to the Syrian government’s violation of international norms,” the White House said.
Members of Congress pressed the officials about a range of issues, the congressional source said, including how military operations in Syria would be funded. The officials offered no answer, the source noted, saying Hagel agreed it was an important question pledged to provide additional information before or soon after any attack was launched.
Even with such questions unanswered, however, advocates continued to push for military action.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said in a statement that “the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime requires a decisive response.”
“This is not a moment to look the other way, to blind ourselves to the horrifying images in Syria, and to send the dangerous message to the global community that we would allow the use of a chemical weapons attack to take place with impunity,” Menendez said.
And Rep. Eliot Engel of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he agrees “with the president that the use of these weapons not only violates international norms, but is a national security threat to the United States.”
“The president’s national security team said that he is still weighing his options and will continue to consult with Congress,” Engel said. “The president’s team agrees that this type of action cannot go without consequences.”
No comments:
Post a Comment