http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/09/12-u-s-intelligence-officials-tell-obama-it-wasnt-assad.html
( Taking away defense of plausible deniability from President Obama ? )
12 U.S. Intelligence Officials Tell Obama It Wasn’t Assad
Cross-Posted from WarIsACrime.org ; originally posted at Consortiumnews.com
By Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
Editor Note: Despite the Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?
Precedence: IMMEDIATE
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”
We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.
Secretary of State John Kerry departs for a Sept. 6 trip to Europe where he plans to meet with officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and other issues. (State Department photo)
The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.
Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.
We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.
Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?
That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”
This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”
Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.
The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.
The Intelligence
There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.
According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.
We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.
In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.
Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government
The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.
Cui bono?
That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.
Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:
“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”
We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.
That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.
Iran’s Role
Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.
Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.
Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”
Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.
Inevitable Retaliation
We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”
For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)
Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
and....
http://intellihub.com/2013/09/07/questions-arise-defense-contractor-involvement-syrian-gas-attack/
Questions Arise As To Defense Contractor Involvement In Syrian Gas Attack
Amidst mounting concerns about the genesis of the Syrian chemical attack of 8/21, a new player has entered the stage — a Colorado-based defense contractor named TechWise.
By Janet Phelan
Intellihub.com
September 7, 2013
The trail to TechWise begins with the recent disclosure of anonymously hacked military emails that were posted to Pastebin, involving conversations between Colonel Anthony MacDonald (now retired) and a shadowy DoD employee named Eugene Furst, as well as communications between MacDonald’s wife, Jennifer and a friend.
These emails show insider knowledge of the chemical attacks in Syria. The MacDonald/Furst emails show Furst congratulating MacDonald on 8/22 of his “success” in a recent operation then linking to a Washington Post article on the Syrian chemical attack. The emails are copied here:
—–Original Message—–
From: AJMacDonald [mailto: ajmacd*******@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:31 PM
To: Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)
Subject: Re: Follow-up, 20130820
As you see I’m far from this now, but I know our guys did their best.
I enjoyed catching-up with you. Hope to see you soon again.
Sincerely,
JamieOn Aug 22, 2013, at 2:14 PM, “Furst, Eugene P CIV (US)”
eugene********@mail.mil> wrote:
You’re exactly right. We have to work with both theater on the requirement
and the organization that owns the contract to ensure we don’t have too few
or too many contractors.
CITP – Rock Island Contract
CIAT – DIA Contract
By the way, saw your latest success, my congratulations. Good job.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-activists-accuse-government-of-deadly-chemical-attack-near-damascus/2013/08/21/aea157e6-0a50-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story.html
Regards,
-Gene
The emails between MacDonald’s wife, Jennifer and a friend named Mary Shapiro show Jennifer MacDonald reassuring her friend that her husband “comforted her,” telling her that the (Syrian) “kids weren’t hurt, it was done for cameras.”
The exchange is copied here:
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 14:59:42 -0700
From: jjlm*****@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Let’s talk
To: mary*******@hotmail.com
Hi Mary;
I saw it either and got afraid very much. But Tony comforted me. He said the kids weren’t hurt, it was done for cameras. So you don’t worry, my dear.That’ll be nice to get down to NC to see your Dad and Lee. If you feel like a road trip about 1/2 hour down the road, go visit the “resort” and have Molly give you a tour of campus. She’d love to see you guys since she didn’t get to PA for Steve’s COC.
Would love to see you during the 7-11 October visit. Ugh, my birthday! We need to go to FL instead of you coming here! I’m trying to forget that day…..But seriously, it would be great to see you anytime.
I will have time to chat this week. Can’t believe Tuesday is the Stallion Stampede. Grace’s first FH game is Wednesday. She has had 2 scrimmages so far and they have won both of them.
Jennifer
From: mary shapiro
To: jennifer macdonald
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: Let’s talk
Everytime I hear about HighPoint…it sounds like a place that I want to live! I hope all goes well in MA. I know its difficult for Pat without you living nearby.Thank you for you offer to visit over Labor Day, however we are going to my Dad’s house over that weekend. Its going to be a tight turn around, but if we don’t go then it may be a while before we can head down there.I am going to be joining Steve at his Capstone class 7-11 October so we should be able to meet for dinner then. Also I would like to try and come down during the day in September to celebrate your bday. So we can start thinking about a few dates.You know, I can’t stop thinking about that terrible gas attack in Syria now. Did you see those kids? I was really crying. They were poisoned, they died. When is it over? I see their faces when in sleep. What did Tony say you about this?
WHO IS ANTHONY JAMES MACDONALD?
MacDonald’s resume includes experience as Chief of Staff for the Defense Intelligence Operations Coordination Center and extensive experience in the theater of war, including intelligence. A sample from his CV follows:
According to Lt. Colonel Don Peters of Army Public Affairs, MacDonald retired in July of this year.
In some of the hacked emails, we see MacDonald, who goes by “Jamie,” actively looking for other employment. On August 6, 2013, he emailed Robert Cox, a civilian with the DIA, stating “I am applying for jobs and learning stuff.”
MacDonald was introduced to Tony Abati with TechWise by US Army Colonel Laura Potter. In one of the hacked emails, she wrote to both of them stating that “I have the utmost respect for both of you and you’d make a great team!”
Abati was clearly courting MacDonald. A series of emails under the header “Linking up Great Professionals,” indicates that a potential hiring conversation was taking place. On June 14, 2013, Abati wrote Potter: “I look forward to speaking with Jamie and discussing current and future opportunities with him.” Following this were emails back and forth between Abati and MacDonald resolving the best time for a skype call.
Attached to Abati’s emails to MacDonald were two job descriptions — one for a Battlestaff Training and Education Program Advisor and one for a Primary Doctrine Writer (Intelligence Doctrine).
Both job descriptions begin with the following:
Techwise Global is conducting a Capabilities Enhancement Project for a military client in the UAE. The project is sanctioned by the US government and supports national security objections in the Middle East. This project involves multiple aspects, including developing enhanced training capabilities and comprehensive doctrine that are required for a full spectrum operation in a joint, combined interagency environment.
TechWise was founded in the mid nineties by Shawnee Huckstep. In 2008, Huckstep was honored as SBA Person of the Year. A televised 2008 interview with Huckstep has her stating that the company now maintains a research lab. In 2012, TechWise received $26 million in defense contract allocations and subsequently set up an office in Dubai.
TechWise Executive VP Rivet Daigre declined to answer if MacDonald was subsequently employed by TechWise. He also declined to answer if there were any TechWise employees in Syria on or around August 21, the date of the alleged chemical attack. Huckstep is reportedly in Dubai and was unable to be reached.
Neither Anthony MacDonald, Jennifer MacDonald nor Mary Shapiro responded to requests for comment.
Lt. Colonel Don Peters of the Pentagon issued a terse statement concerning MacDonald and the implications of the emails:
We are aware of this situation and it is under investigation. We don’t comment on ongoing investigations.
Peters was not able to provide any details as to what sort of work Eugene Furst does for the Department of Defense.
Tony Abati was reached in Abu Dhabi and asked if Techwise hired MacDonald. He declined to answer the question, saying:
We are talking about a man who has given his life for his nation and I don’t understand why people are saying the things that they are saying about him. I don’t want anything to do with it.
and frankly note the Intel folks saying this doesn't add up as being Assad handiwork - fingerprints of Israel , Turkey , Saudia Arabia and Qatar on the fabled chemical weapon attack.....
High-Level U.S. Intelligence Officers: Syrian Government Didn’t Launch Chemical Weapons
Submitted by George Washington on 09/07/2013 02:09 -0400
Preface: Without doubt, intelligence is being manipulated to justify war against Syria. Here,here, here, here and here.
Without doubt, the Syrian rebels had access to chemical weapons … and have apparently used them in the recent past.
Associated Press reported last week:
An intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or evencompletely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.***Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.
Reuters notes today:
With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.
Indeed, numerous intelligence officers say that the rebels likely carried out the August 21st attack.
For example, the Daily Caller reports:
The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.***The doctored report was picked upon Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC.According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff,shows just the opposite.The general staff officer asked the major if he was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. From the tone of the conversation, it was clear that “the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions,” the former officers say.According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major“hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.The report contains a note at the end that the major was interrogated by Syrian intelligence for three days, then returned to command of his unit. “All of his weapons were accounted for,” the report stated.***An Egyptian intelligence report describes a meeting in Turkey between military intelligence officials from Turkey and Qatar and Syrian rebels. One of the participants states, “there will be a game changing event on August 21st” that will “bring the U.S. into a bombing campaign”against the Syrian regime.The chemical weapons strike on Moudhamiya, an area under rebel control, took place on August 21.“Egyptian military intelligence insists it was a combined Turkish/Qatar/rebel false flag operation,” said a source familiar with the report.[A "false flag" is a ploy for starting war which has been used by governments around the world for thousands of years.]Agents provacateurs are as old as warfare itself. What better than a false flag attack, staged by al Qaeda and its al Nusra front allies in Syria, to drag the United States into a war?
And 12 very high-level former intelligence officials wrote the following memorandum to Obama today:
We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”***There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad governmentThe Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.
Foreign policy based on doctoral pondering from a student ?
And when you thought things couldn't get stranger with this Administration and their war mongers buddies - suddenly they just do ...
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/obama-relying-on-students-spin-on-syria/
NEW YORK – Evidence is mounting that the strategy by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Secretary of State John F. Kerry to cast members of the Free Syria Army as “moderates” among the rebel forces opposing the government of Bashir al-Assad was the brain-child of Elizabeth O’Bagy, a 26-year-old graduate student pursuing a Ph.D. in Arab studies and political science at Georgetown University, who is working on a dissertation on woman’s militancy.
In his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, Kerry cited O’Bagy, arguing that the war in Syria is “not being waged entirely or even predominately by dangerous Islamists and al-Qaida die-hards,” but rather the struggle is being led but “moderate opposition forces – a collection of groups known as the Free Syria Army.”
Kerry was citing an opinion piece O’Bagy wrote for the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 30 titled “On the Front Lines of Syria’s Civil War.” It ran with a tag-line “The conventional wisdom – that jihadists are running the rebellion [in Syria] – is not what I’ve witnessed on the ground.”
The O’Bagy narrative, however, is contradicted by intelligence estimates and experts specializing in the region.
After Kerry’s testimony to Congress this week, Reuters reported: “Secretary of State John Kerry’s public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and non-governmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.”
On April 27, the New York Times reported that the Jabhat al-Nursa Front, a group declared a terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department, has pledged allegiance to al Qaida’s top leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and remains the group of choice for foreign jihadis pouring into Syria. The Ahrar al-Sham, meanwhile, which shares much of al-Nusra’s extremist ideology, is composed mostly of Syrians.
In her capacity as a senior research analyst and the Syria team leader at the Washington-based Institute for the Study of War think-tank, O’Bagy authored a report in March titled “The Free Syrian Army” in which she argued as follows:
The opposition movement in Syria has been fragmented from its inception, a direct reflection of Syria’s social complexity and the decentralized grassroots of the uprising. This condition has plagued Syria’s armed opposition since peaceful protestors took up arms and began forming rebel groups under the umbrella of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) in the summer of 2001.
The narrative is currently being circulated in Congress in an attempt to counter the recent disclosure of evidence the rebel groups in Syria affiliated with al-Qaida and the Muslim Brotherhood, who have committed atrocities against government soldiers and Syrian civilians, may be the parties responsible for the chemical weapons attacks the Obama administration is blaming on the Assad government.
O’Bagy also works as the political director of the Washington-based Syrian Emergency Task Force, or SETF, chaired by Mohamed Kawam.
Kawam is linked with the Washington-based Syrian Support Group, or SSG, which encourages Americans to send money that arguably could be used to buy weapons for the Free Syria Group.
The “Donate” button on the Syrian Support Group website specifies donations will go toward providing “certain logistical, communications, and other services to the FSA.” The caveat is “the SSG intends to support only those military councils that have adopted the FSA’s Proclamation of Principles,” not the Jabhat al-Nusra or any other group designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. government.
The “About the Syrian Support Group” page on the group’s website states the SSG has pursued and received a license from the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Assets Control that permits the organization to raise funds and provide certain services to the FSA, further specifying the SSG has to date transported over $10 million in U.S. government aid to the Supreme Military Council of the FSA.
The Facebook page of the Coalition for a Democratic Syria makes clear the Syrian Emergency Task Force organized McCain’s surprise May visit to Syria, where he met with leaders of the FSA Supreme Military Council.
On May 27, the Los Angeles Times reported O’Bagy, in her capacity as political director for the Syrian Emergency Task Force, said in a telephone interview from Turkey that McCain’s office approached the task force two weeks earlier to ask if it could arrange for him to meet with Syrian rebel leaders in Syria.
O’Bagy, who accompanied McCain on the senator’s May trip to the Middle East, told the newspaper McCain met with FSA commanders in two meetings in Gaziantep, Turkey, and in one meeting about a half mile inside the Syrian border at the Bab Salameh border crossing. There, he talked with the Asifat al-Shamal, identified as the Northern Storm Brigade, that controls the border.
O’Bagy further confirmed to the Los Angeles Times that Gen. Salim Idriss, the leader of the Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, and other rebel commanders asked the U.S. to consider giving heavy weapons to the FSA, set up a no-fly zone in Syria and conduct air attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon.
McCain asked the FSA commanders how they planned to reduce the presence of Islamic extremists in Syrian rebel ranks, O’Bagy told the newspaper.
In Syria, McCain was photographed with a group of Syrian rebels that included Mouaz Moustafa, a Palestinian Arab (seen to far right of photograph, closest to camera) who was introduced to McCain as the executive director of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, the group that organized the senator’s trip.
McCain in Syria, May 2013, with Mouaz Moustafa (seen at far right, closest to camera)
On Twitter, Moustafa identifies himself as a Palestinian refugee who moved to the U.S. at 12 years old, worked as a staffer in the U.S. House and Senate (Rep. Vic Snyder, D-Ark., and Sen. Blanche Lincoln, D-Ark.) and participated in the Libyan and Syrian revolutions.
On Instagram, Moustafa calls himself a “Freelance Revolutionary,” adding that he also worked as a field organizer for the Democratic National Committee in 2008.
On Linkedin.com, Moustafa continues to list himself as the executive director at the Libyan Council of North America.
A Daily Caller profile of Moustafa added that he meets with National Security Council staff “every couple of months.”
In recent weeks, O’Bagy and Moustafa have been conducting a media blitz on behalf of the Syrian Emergency Task Force, including interviews with NPR, Fox News, RT, Thom Hartmann’s radio show, Foreign Policy Magazine and MSNBC, arguing that the FSA is the “moderate” rebel group the U.S. should support in Syria.
The Daily Beast has reported that in addition to meeting with Moustafa and FSA leaders in Syria, McCain also met with Mohammad Nour and Ammar Al-Dadikhi (a.k.a. Abu Ibrahim), two men who were part of a group that kidnapped Lebanese religious pilgrims returning from Iran in May 2012. Both were identified as being part of Asifat al Shamal, the Syrian rebel group known as the Northern Storm Brigade controlling the border.
No sense of urgency or is Congress genuinely " troubled " ?
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2013/09/lowry_no_sense_of_urgency_from_white_house_on_syria_war_vote.html
September 7, 2013
Lowry: No sense of 'urgency' from White House on Syria war vote
Why is President Obama's Syria war resolution going down to a massive defeat in the House? Rich Lowry, writing at National Review, spoke to a source on the Hill who gives several reasons why Obama is bound to lose:
1) The debate started while members were scattered to the winds on recess, making it impossible for the White House to do any persuasion in person;2) The chickens are coming home to roost in terms of the non-existent White House relationship with Capitol Hill. He shared a few stories of the chief White House lobbyist either not knowing key players he should know or not being recognized himself by key players (tellingly, my source doesn't know his name);3) Even as the vote is swinging the wrong way, there seems to be no urgency on the part of the White House, which should be in a near panic.Of course, the bigger influence on Republicans is the deluge of calls and e-mails in opposition, as we've reported here and here.If only a couple of dozen Republicans are in support, that means almost all Democrats have to vote in favor. Absent a big change that shifts dozens of votes all at once, my source expects the authorization to lose. "It's hard to find a precedent for a president imploding on something this big," he says.
I've mentioned several times on these pages that friends I've known for more than 30 years who still work on the Hill tell me that this is the absolute worst administration in their tenure as far as relations with Congress. Lowry calls it "non-existent" but that's not entirely accurate. My sources tell me that the Obama congressional lobbying shop has pissed off just about anybody of note, treating members like clerks, ordering them around, and, of course, doing their best to stick it to the GOP.
The curent whip count is 225 members opposed or leaning that way, and only 25 votes in favor. The Senate appears more favorably inclined, although those numbers could go south at any time because the majority is still undecided. Currently there are 24 Senators opposed or leaning that way with 25 in favor.
The president speaks to the nation on Tuesday night - his last chance to change minds and turn this disastrous situation around. With his Secretary of State saying that even if the resolution is defeated, the president could still take us to war, it may be that Obama really doesn't care much what the vote in the House might end up being.
Syria Whip Count - leans no / firm no .... NO vote at 246 in the House
Congressional Vote on Syria Whip Count, Sept 7 |
By: Jane Hamsher Saturday September 7, 2013 8:04 am |
Visit Firedoglake’s Syria Whip Count Page
Here we are at Day 6 of our whip effort. This is where we stand:
I
’ll be listing the positions of individual House members below as I learn them. In the mean time, for your reading enjoyment, have a look at this piece from Greg Sargent which outlines how the White House plans to get a “yes vote” through the House on Syria.
I’m the first to call bs on the liberal kabuki going on, and view many of the Democratic nays and as well as those in radio silence as closet yeas. But the piece, sourced to Democratic “aides,” expect that Pelosi will deliver 120-130 Democratic votes, and they’re counting on the Republicans for 90-100 votes.
Politico echoes this:
I added undecideds to the chart above. As you can see, there are only 39 Republicans undeclared at this point. Add that to the 15 Republican firm yea/lean yea votes and you only get 42. Which means Boehner is going to have to turn 50 or so nays to yeas in order to deliver 90-100 votes.
My guess is they Democrats are counting on AIPAC to make a big push and turn a lot of Republicans who now say they are opposed. But you don’t have to be the amazing Kreskin to see that if AIPAC really cared that much they would have been all over this from the get. The fact that they waited this long is going to be a big signal to Republicans that AIPAC doesn’t really care that much, and I imagine they’ll be hard pressed to turn 50 Republican votes.
AIPAC will probably be more successful in getting Democratic supporters to commit. And we’ll see a lot more Democrats commit to voting for the bill starting Monday when they’re back in session, and the whip team has the opportunity to isolate them and pick them off.
But like I said before, Pelosi will have to drop the pimp hand to deliver closer to 160-170 votes to make this pass. And if they Democratic whip operation is not planning on doing that, they’re not planning on winning, IMHO.
Whip Count
Pete Sessions (R-TX) who comes out as a firm nay: “Like most of my constituents, I also do not believe the president’s current plan is in the best interests of the American people or our national security.”
That leaves us with 241 nays, well past the majority of 217.
Mike Simpson (R-ID) lean nay: “Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho says he’s strongly leaning against it.”
Mike McCaul (R-TX) from lean nay to firm nay: “Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said Thursday if the vote to strike Syria were held that day, he’d vote no.”
Mac Thornberry (R-TX) lean nay: “[Thornberry] says so far the president’s administration has not made a convincing argument supporting a U.S. attack.”
Tim Walberg (R-MI) firm nay: “Congressman Walberg says he would vote no on military strikes against Syria
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) from lean nay to lean yea: “A refusal to act in Syria after the president has set such a clear red line will be seen as a green light by the Iranian regime, who will see that we don’t have the will to back up our words.”
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) lean nay: “The ongoing civil war in Syria is heartbreaking, but I have great reservations about intervening in Syria.”
Update 1:11 PM: Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) says he will not vote for action in Syria per CNN. BIG defection.
The Hill says “Fears of wounding Obama weigh heavily on Democrats.”
Alan Grayson has an OpEd at the NYT: “On Syria Vote, Trust, but Verify.” Grayson says that members of Congress have only been shown “summaries” of the evidence about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and have been denied access to the underlying data:
Update 2:09 PM: Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) from lean nay to firm nay: “Syria: At this point I don’t see a clear & present danger to the USA. Planning to vote NO to war.”
Update 2:35 PM: CNN is showing horrifying videos of people dying that were apparently shown to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
UN weapons inspector David Kay says that these videos are consistent with a sarin gas attack, but he doesn’t go by videos. He says the inspectors are still being denied the underlying intelligence data on the attacks that they had access to in Iraq, which they used to make their determinations.
Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard says that most GOP opposition comes from lack of confidence in Obama, not a belief in non-interventionism.
Update 3:19 PM: Looking over the very good & very helpful Washington Post whip chart, and where our numbers differ.
They have Austin Scott (R-GA) as a “lean no.” The quote I went by is from NPR: “Scott told constituents he doesn’t plan to support the resolution authorizing U.S. military strikes in Syria.” I assigned him to the “firm no.”
They have Bill Young (R-FL) as “undecided.” I have him as a “lean nay” based on this interview with theTampa Bay Times.
Has anyone noted differences between Kerry and Obama - is there a schism ? Here we are at Day 6 of our whip effort. This is where we stand:
Syria War Vote Count Sat Sept 7 2013
Democrats | Republicans | Total | |
Firm Nay | 21 | 92 | 113 |
Firm Yea | 20 | 8 | 28 |
Leaning Nay | 45 | 88 | 133 |
Leaning Yea | 27 | 6 | 33 |
Undecided | 87 | 39 | 126 |
TOTAL | 200 | 233 | 433 |
’ll be listing the positions of individual House members below as I learn them. In the mean time, for your reading enjoyment, have a look at this piece from Greg Sargent which outlines how the White House plans to get a “yes vote” through the House on Syria.
I’m the first to call bs on the liberal kabuki going on, and view many of the Democratic nays and as well as those in radio silence as closet yeas. But the piece, sourced to Democratic “aides,” expect that Pelosi will deliver 120-130 Democratic votes, and they’re counting on the Republicans for 90-100 votes.
Politico echoes this:
If the expectation of the Democrats is that Republicans are going to carry this home, I think they’re likely to fail.Democrats are quick to try to deflect any questions about the politics of Democrats being forced to carry the resolution over the finish line — Rep. Sander Levin (D-Mich.) said it’s actually up to Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to whip its membership in line.
I added undecideds to the chart above. As you can see, there are only 39 Republicans undeclared at this point. Add that to the 15 Republican firm yea/lean yea votes and you only get 42. Which means Boehner is going to have to turn 50 or so nays to yeas in order to deliver 90-100 votes.
My guess is they Democrats are counting on AIPAC to make a big push and turn a lot of Republicans who now say they are opposed. But you don’t have to be the amazing Kreskin to see that if AIPAC really cared that much they would have been all over this from the get. The fact that they waited this long is going to be a big signal to Republicans that AIPAC doesn’t really care that much, and I imagine they’ll be hard pressed to turn 50 Republican votes.
AIPAC will probably be more successful in getting Democratic supporters to commit. And we’ll see a lot more Democrats commit to voting for the bill starting Monday when they’re back in session, and the whip team has the opportunity to isolate them and pick them off.
But like I said before, Pelosi will have to drop the pimp hand to deliver closer to 160-170 votes to make this pass. And if they Democratic whip operation is not planning on doing that, they’re not planning on winning, IMHO.
Whip Count
Pete Sessions (R-TX) who comes out as a firm nay: “Like most of my constituents, I also do not believe the president’s current plan is in the best interests of the American people or our national security.”
That leaves us with 241 nays, well past the majority of 217.
Mike Simpson (R-ID) lean nay: “Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho says he’s strongly leaning against it.”
Mike McCaul (R-TX) from lean nay to firm nay: “Homeland Security Chairman Rep. Mike McCaul (R-Texas) said Thursday if the vote to strike Syria were held that day, he’d vote no.”
Mac Thornberry (R-TX) lean nay: “[Thornberry] says so far the president’s administration has not made a convincing argument supporting a U.S. attack.”
Tim Walberg (R-MI) firm nay: “Congressman Walberg says he would vote no on military strikes against Syria
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) from lean nay to lean yea: “A refusal to act in Syria after the president has set such a clear red line will be seen as a green light by the Iranian regime, who will see that we don’t have the will to back up our words.”
Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY) lean nay: “The ongoing civil war in Syria is heartbreaking, but I have great reservations about intervening in Syria.”
Update 1:11 PM: Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) says he will not vote for action in Syria per CNN. BIG defection.
The Hill says “Fears of wounding Obama weigh heavily on Democrats.”
Alan Grayson has an OpEd at the NYT: “On Syria Vote, Trust, but Verify.” Grayson says that members of Congress have only been shown “summaries” of the evidence about the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and have been denied access to the underlying data:
EU members evidently has a lower bar of proof than Grayson, or they have been shown evidence that members of Congress have been denied. Earlier today they agreed that “chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syria’s regime, but that any potential military attack against it should wait for a U.N. inspectors’ report.”Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.
Update 2:09 PM: Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) from lean nay to firm nay: “Syria: At this point I don’t see a clear & present danger to the USA. Planning to vote NO to war.”
Update 2:35 PM: CNN is showing horrifying videos of people dying that were apparently shown to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday.
UN weapons inspector David Kay says that these videos are consistent with a sarin gas attack, but he doesn’t go by videos. He says the inspectors are still being denied the underlying intelligence data on the attacks that they had access to in Iraq, which they used to make their determinations.
Stephen Hayes at the Weekly Standard says that most GOP opposition comes from lack of confidence in Obama, not a belief in non-interventionism.
Update 3:19 PM: Looking over the very good & very helpful Washington Post whip chart, and where our numbers differ.
They have Austin Scott (R-GA) as a “lean no.” The quote I went by is from NPR: “Scott told constituents he doesn’t plan to support the resolution authorizing U.S. military strikes in Syria.” I assigned him to the “firm no.”
They have Bill Young (R-FL) as “undecided.” I have him as a “lean nay” based on this interview with theTampa Bay Times.
Obama on whether he will heed congressional no vote....
Admin official says Obama has no 'intention' to strike Syria without Hill approval
Deputy National Security Adviser Tony Blinken on Friday saidPresident Obama does not intend to strike Syria if Congress rejects his bid to authorize a U.S. military response to the two-year civil war.
“The president of course has the authority to act but it’s neither his desire nor his intention to use that authority absent Congress backing him,” Blinken told NPR on Friday.
The White House, at least publicly, has refused to say what the president would do if he does not win enough congressional support to strike Syria.
After Blinken’s interview, an administration official told the Washington Examiner the White House still expects Congress to approve Obama’s request for military action. And they don’t have an official position on what would happen if lawmakers rebuff the president’s appeal, the source said.
However, signs are emerging that Obama’s inner circle is increasingly wary of going it alone on Syria.
White House aides now view a possible attack against Syria without the backing of lawmakers as “unthinkable,” according to a New York Times report.
Obama has chosen to sidestep lawmakers on issues ranging from immigration to environmental policy. But an authorization of military force would create an even greater constitutional clash and stoke cries from Republicans that Obama is overstepping his executive authority.
The president has not garnered the type of international support for a Syrian strike that the White House had hoped for during the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. And on the home front, a growing number of Republicans and Democrats say Obama has failed to effectively make the case for military intervention.
But then look at her Kerry coms down ?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/john-kerry-congress-syria_n_3881200.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
WASHINGTON -- Even as he beseeches former colleagues in Congress to vote for President Barack Obama’s plan to bomb Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry made it clear in an interview with The Huffington Post that he thinks the president has the right to order air strikes in the face of congressional disapproval.
If that scenario were to materialize -- a bombing campaign after a "no" vote -- the result would almost certainly be an impeachment drive in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
Citing their role as commander-in-chief, U.S. presidents have assumed ever-greater latitude in ordering apparent acts of war without obtaining Congress’ permission, as the letter of the Constitution requires. Firing cruise missiles and/or dropping bombs on the military infrastructure of Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime would be an “act of war,” according to Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- especially since the United States would not be enforcing a United Nations-sanctioned enforcement mission.
At first, as evidence mounted that Assad had used chemical weapons on his own people in the midst of a two-year-old civil war, Obama tentatively decided to follow his recent predecessors and take action on his own, without seeking support in a congressional vote. Then last week the president surprised his own aides (including Kerry) and changed his mind, apparently because he lacked much international support and because he wanted to spread the domestic political risk.
But even though Obama is now seeking Congress’ support, Kerry insisted that the president is not bound by law to stand down should his plan be rejected.
Hadn’t the president in essence ceded that leeway by coming to Congress? I asked the secretary of state.
The answer, he said, was no.
“Constitutionally, every president, Republican and Democrat alike, has always reserved to the presidency, to the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, the right to make a decision with respect to American security,” Kerry said during an interview in his State Department reception room on Thursday.
“Bill Clinton went to Kosovo over the objections of many people and saved lives and managed to make peace because he did something that was critical at the time. Many presidents have done that. Reagan did it. Bush did it. A lot of presidents have made a decision that they have to protect the nation.
“Now. I can’t tell you what judgment the president will make if, in three weeks, Bashar Assad uses chemical weapons again. But the president reserves the right in the presidency to respond as appropriate to protect the security of our nation.”
The constitutional question aside, wouldn’t the president risk a political firestorm if he were to move ahead in the face of a “no” vote, should one come to pass?
The constitutional question aside, wouldn’t the president risk a political firestorm if he were to move ahead in the face of a “no” vote, should one come to pass?
“I am not going to speculate about it because I hope Congress will exercise its best judgment,” Kerry said, by supporting the president's “unbelievably limited and tailored” plan.
“Tailored” though the plan may be, Kerry offered a rather murky, “trust us” explanation for how the Obama administration could obliterate Assad’s chemical weapons delivery systems without risking dispersal of the weapons themselves into even worse hands.
How can it be done? Kerry was asked.
“By being very thoughtful in your selection of what you do,” he replied, “so that you do not undo his ability to be able to maintain and guard the actual stockpiles. Stockpiles are spread out in various parts of the country.
“And we know where they are. And the United States is obviously going to be very careful not to do something that makes matters worse. You know, we’ve sat around and talked through all of those issues.”
During a 24-minute interview, Kerry reiterated the themes and points he has been pressing, with limited success, in public and behind closed doors in Congress.
The essence: that evidence of Assad’s perfidious use of chemical weapons is clear “beyond a reasonable doubt”; that the mission to punish him and “degrade” his chemical weapons capability is narrowly targeted; that the material will not fall into the wrong hands; that there is a greater risk of the spread of such weapons if the U.S. does not act; that there is a critical mass of trustworthy opposition forces such that al-Qaeda would not take over if Assad were forced out; that even though the U.S. wants Assad gone, the U.S. will not put ground troops in Syria for any purpose.
Kerry argued that his own history as an anti-war Vietnam War veteran has given him a deep skepticism of military intelligence and military solutions, which, in his view, makes him a more credible advocate now.
But at times during the interview, the distant echo of Vietnam-era rationales and rationalizations -- domino theories, fears of being seen as a weak “paper tiger,” assurances that we would avoid local civil wars and their military “quagmires” -- was deafening.
Still, the secretary of state did his best to make the case.
How can you say Assad guilty before the UN even confirms whether sarin or any allegd chemical weapon even deployed by someone ?
http://rt.com/news/eu-kerry-assad-gas-560/
The European Union says the Syrian government was the likely perpetrator of the Damascus chemical attack on August 21, but will not be rushed into any military action before an official UN report is released.
"Information from a wide variety of sources confirms the existence of such an attack and seems to indicate strong evidence that the Syrian regime is responsible for this attack," EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said in a statement following a meeting between European foreign ministers and US Secretary of State John Kerry in the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius on Saturday.
"In the face of this cynical use of chemical weapons, the international community cannot remain idle. A clear and strong response is crucial to make clear that such crimes are unacceptable and that there will be no impunity," Ashton said.
The United States says that Syria’s official forces unleashed a gas attack on a Damascus suburb last month, killing over 1,400 civilians. The White House, which previously designated chemical warfare as a“red line,” is calling for “limited” action against the Assad regime – likely a series of air strikes.
The European Union nonetheless urged the United States to respect “the UN process.” A United Nations expert team toured the site of the alleged attack in its aftermath. French President Francois Hollande has said that the preliminary results of the report will be presented by the end of next week. The inquest is likely to identify the substance of the attack – suspected to be sarin nerve gas - and its scale, but may not say at whose behest it was executed.
Kerry, who traveled to Vilnius specifically to garner European support, said he was “grateful” for “a strong statement about the need for accountability” from the EU’s 28 members. He also stated that Barack Obama has not himself decided whether it is necessary to wait until the UN report before taking action, though in any case it is likely its contents will be revealed before Congress has a chance to vote on the Syria intervention.
Opinion on the effectiveness of a potential strike runs a wide gamut across Europe.
The European Union nonetheless urged the United States to respect “the UN process.” A United Nations expert team toured the site of the alleged attack in its aftermath. French President Francois Hollande has said that the preliminary results of the report will be presented by the end of next week. The inquest is likely to identify the substance of the attack – suspected to be sarin nerve gas - and its scale, but may not say at whose behest it was executed.
Kerry, who traveled to Vilnius specifically to garner European support, said he was “grateful” for “a strong statement about the need for accountability” from the EU’s 28 members. He also stated that Barack Obama has not himself decided whether it is necessary to wait until the UN report before taking action, though in any case it is likely its contents will be revealed before Congress has a chance to vote on the Syria intervention.
Opinion on the effectiveness of a potential strike runs a wide gamut across Europe.
Over the past fortnight, France and the UK have led calls for military response. Italy and Spain have assumed a waiting position, while Germany has proceeded with caution.
On Saturday, Hollande said he will wait for UN expert conclusions before deciding his next move – news which contrasts with his previous statements. Meanwhile, Germany became the eleventh G20 member to sign a petition demanding a “strong” response to the alleged actions of the Assad government.
The European Union also declared that the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague should investigate any Syrian officials involved in the incident. But the ICC will not act without unanimous approval from the UN Security Council, and that is unlikely to be obtained.
Russia and China have repeatedly blocked Western-backed resolutions in the Security Council throughout the 30-month conflict.
During the G20 summit in St. Petersburg on Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the Syrian rebels - not the government - were behind the attack. He also said that Russia would offer military support to the Assad regime in case of a strike.
Kerry will now travel to Paris and London in an attempt to win endorsement for US military action from Arab leaders, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
According to UN estimates, at least 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against Bashar Assad began in March 2011.
On Saturday, Hollande said he will wait for UN expert conclusions before deciding his next move – news which contrasts with his previous statements. Meanwhile, Germany became the eleventh G20 member to sign a petition demanding a “strong” response to the alleged actions of the Assad government.
The European Union also declared that the UN International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague should investigate any Syrian officials involved in the incident. But the ICC will not act without unanimous approval from the UN Security Council, and that is unlikely to be obtained.
Russia and China have repeatedly blocked Western-backed resolutions in the Security Council throughout the 30-month conflict.
During the G20 summit in St. Petersburg on Friday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the Syrian rebels - not the government - were behind the attack. He also said that Russia would offer military support to the Assad regime in case of a strike.
Kerry will now travel to Paris and London in an attempt to win endorsement for US military action from Arab leaders, including Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
According to UN estimates, at least 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against Bashar Assad began in March 2011.
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/
( late day updates... )
Saturday, September 7
18:01 GMT: Hundreds of pilgrims have arrived in St Peter's Square in the Vatican to join Pope Francis in prayer for Syria. The head of the Catholic Church has invited people of all faiths to join in a day of fasting and prayer to call for an end to the Syrian conflict.
During this week’s G20 summit, the Pope called on world leaders to seek peace in Syria through diplomatic means and to lay aside the “futile pursuit” of a military solution.
During this week’s G20 summit, the Pope called on world leaders to seek peace in Syria through diplomatic means and to lay aside the “futile pursuit” of a military solution.
17:50 GMT: US President Barack Obama has made no decisions about waiting for a UN weapons inspectors' report on chemical arms used in Syria, and he is keeping all of his options open, US Secretary of State John Kerry said after meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.
17:40 GMT: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius believes a military strike against Syria is the key to a political solution to the country’s conflict.
Fabius added that all the members of the UN Security Council should denounce the Syrian government and support the use of force.
The statement came after the French FM’s meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who agreed with his counterpart, adding that “[Syrian President Bashar] Assad must be punished.”
17:17 GMT: A rally against the expected US-led military operation in Syria is continuing for a second day in front of the American Embassy in al-Metn's Awkar neighborhood, east of the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
"Syria, the land of Arabism and resilience, is in danger. But the country does not want protection as it safeguarded Arabs for a long time. It needs Arabs to stand by its side instead of calling on foreign countries to destroy it,” Naharnet quoted activist Ali Taleb as saying.
“The American Spring will not be achieved through Damascus, and certainly not through Beirut,” he said.
17:40 GMT: French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius believes a military strike against Syria is the key to a political solution to the country’s conflict.
Fabius added that all the members of the UN Security Council should denounce the Syrian government and support the use of force.
The statement came after the French FM’s meeting with US Secretary of State John Kerry, who agreed with his counterpart, adding that “[Syrian President Bashar] Assad must be punished.”
17:17 GMT: A rally against the expected US-led military operation in Syria is continuing for a second day in front of the American Embassy in al-Metn's Awkar neighborhood, east of the Lebanese capital of Beirut.
"Syria, the land of Arabism and resilience, is in danger. But the country does not want protection as it safeguarded Arabs for a long time. It needs Arabs to stand by its side instead of calling on foreign countries to destroy it,” Naharnet quoted activist Ali Taleb as saying.
“The American Spring will not be achieved through Damascus, and certainly not through Beirut,” he said.
No comments:
Post a Comment