Bonfire of our Vanities ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3
( Al Qaeda's mercenaries ? Lackeys of Saudis and Qatar - is this what it's come down to ? )
“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country,” Kerry insisted, saying that he could envision a ground invasion to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
This is pretty messy with factions in Iraq on both sides of the issue.
Who Gains From Using Chemical Weapons?
Assad had the most to lose by using chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar have the most to gain, especially if chemical use was attributed to Syria (not the rebels).
As noted in Warmongers Unite (As They Always Do), Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack. Here are some additional links.
John Kerry says US tests prove sarin used in Syria attacks
Kerry never answered the question "By Whom?"
Who Are The Rebels?
Just who are the rebels seeking to overthrow Assad?
Wikipedia has the answer in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war
Bloomberg reports McCain Balks on Syria Measure Absent More Rebel Support
Military Aid to Al Qaeda, Al Nusra
McCain wants to arm the rebels, but if we arm the rebels, we arm Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and other foreign terrorist organizations. It's as simple as that.
Warmongers like McCain do not care about such things. They just want war.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Ted-Cruz-US-Is-Not-Al-Qaedas-Air-Force
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/the-houses-syria-hearing-live-updates/#e68f139f-e012-476c-876e-2467ba30e5e3
( Al Qaeda's mercenaries ? Lackeys of Saudis and Qatar - is this what it's come down to ? )
Secretary of State John Kerry said at Wednesday’s hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for the entirety of unseating President Bashar al-Assad if the United States took the lead militarily.
“With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes,” Kerry said. “They have. That offer is on the table.”
Asked by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) about how much those countries would contribute, Kerry said they have offered to pay for all of a full invasion.
“In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost,” Kerry said. “That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.
Submitted by George Washington on 09/04/2013 17:27 -0400
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/04/2013 20:06 -0400
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html
( This is all just a set up for a massive ground war... )
Arabs (Saudis and Qataris) Will Pay for Syria War
SecState John Kerry said at today's congressional hearing that Arab counties have offered to pay for regime change in Syria:
With respect to Arab countries offering to bear costs and to assess, the answer is profoundly yes. They have. That offer is on the table.
In fact, some of them have said that if the United States is prepared to go do the whole thing the way we’ve done it previously in other places, they’ll carry that cost.
That’s how dedicated they are at this. That’s not in the cards, and nobody’s talking about it, but they’re talking in serious ways about getting this done.
Why are the Saudis and Qataris so keen to topple Syria's Assad? Natural gas, Islamic sectarian warfare (and here) ... and perhaps preserving the monetary status quo.
Postscript: The Saudis are heavily involved with backing terrorists for cynical reasons. The Syrian "rebels" are closely connected with Al Qaeda. A good fit. Bonus:
2 Congress Members: We Shouldn’t Be “Al Qaeda’s Air Force”
I Didn’t Join the Military to …
Kerry: We Have to Send Terrorists Into Syria to Make Sure that Chemical Weapons Don’t Fall Into the Hands of Terrorists
Breathtaking U.S. Hypocrisy on Chemical Weapons
Intelligence Officials Confirm that Intelligence Is Being Politicized to Justify War In Syria
Guest Post: Is The US Going To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
As we asked (rhetorically, of course) and answered over 3 months ago, why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria? The answer revolves, as usually is the case in the Middle East, around a pipeline.
Here are some additional perspectives.
Submitted by Michael Snyder of The Economic Collapse blog,
Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria? Of course. Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.
[ZH: And as we asked last week, why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?] Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.
On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons. One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.
Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict. If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia. This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.
It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time. The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...
Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG)."We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas."For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.
As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline. Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route. The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...
In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.
If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia. So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people. In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...
The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.
Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.
But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.
If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...
Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.
Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?
And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.
If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive. In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...
The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad. It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force. It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets. Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used. Four points are worth making about these purposes.First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict. Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described. Some questions for Congress to ponder:(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power? Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S.or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S.or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.
Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?
What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...
I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'
Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.
In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2411885/Revealed-Pentagon-knew-2012-75-000-GROUND-TROOPS-secure-Syrias-chemical-weapons-facilities.html
( This is all just a set up for a massive ground war... )
Securing Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles and the facilities that produced them would likely require the U.S. to send more than 75,000 ground troops into the Middle Eastern country, MailOnline learned Wednesday.
That estimate comes from a secret memorandum the U.S. Department of Defense prepared for President Obama in early 2012.
U.S. Central Command arrived at the figure of 75,000 ground troops as part of a written series of military options for dealing with Bashar al-Assad more than 18 months ago, long before the U.S. confirmed internally that the Syrian dictator was using the weapons against rebel factions within his borders.
'The report exists, and it was prepared at the request of the National Security Advisor's staff,' a Department of Defense official with knowledge of the inquiry told MailOnline Wednesday on condition of anonymity.
'DoD spent lots of time and resources on it. Everyone understood that this wasn't a pointless exercise, and that eventually we would be tasked with going and getting the VX and sarin, so there was lots of due diligence.'
The logistical difficulties of bringing Syria's chemical warfare infrastructure under control stands in stark contrast with the text of a resolution passed Wednesday by a powerful Senate committee, and with assurances Secretary of State John Kerry has given committees in both houses of Congress.
The War Powers Resolution, which passed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee late Wednesday on a bipartisan 10-7 vote, includes text noting that it 'does not authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces on the ground in Syria for the purpose of combat operations.'
If President Obama were to deploy ground forces in Syria, the final words of that phrase – 'for the purpose of combat operations' – could become a loophole large enough to drive a Humvee through.
Speaking to the committee on Tuesday as he made the case for a congressional authorization to bomb critical Syrian military sites, Kerry seemed to leave open the possibility that 'boots on the ground' could be marshaled specifically to secure chemical weapons stockpiles 'in the event Syria imploded, for instance.'
Kerry also mused on a scenario in which 'there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else and it was clearly in the interest of our allies and all of us – the British, the French and others – to prevent those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst elements.'
'I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country,' Kerry concluded.
But moments later he insisted 'the military plan that has been developed by the joint chiefs ... is limited. It does not involve boots on the ground. This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan.
Less than a day later, Kerry sang the same refrain for members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
'There will be no boots on the ground,' Kerry said Wednesday.
'The president has said that again and again. And there is nothing in this authorization that should contemplate it. And, we reiterate, no boots on the ground.'
An August 20, 2013 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, whose research muscle is tapped routinely by members of Congress, described that troop estimate and attributed it to a February 22, 2012 CNN report.
When that report aired, the network cited unnamed Pentagon officials who said securing the chemical warfare installations would be extraordinarily difficult,' and might require more U.S. ground forces than were in Afghanistan at the time.
A British Parliamentary report published in July determined that there is 'no doubt amongst the UK intelligence community that the Syrian regime possesses vast stockpiles' of weaponized chemical agents.
The Congressional Research Service underscored concerns 'that Syria could transfer its chemical weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon,' further explaining the need for large masses of U.S. troops in the country during the early days of a military attack.
The White House confirmed ten days later
that 'the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.'
A preliminary assessment that at least 1,429 people were killed in that attack, including at least 426 children, has formed the basis for President Obama's demand that Congress approve a series of targeted air strikes in retaliation.
The full Senate may vote on the Was Powers Resolution as soon as Monday, barring a filibuster for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who hinted during a Tuesday conference call that he might repeat the March marathon during which he spoke for 13 hours straight in order to delay a confirmation vote on CIA Director John Brennan.
The House of Representatives could face a longer, more drawn-out process with Republicans at the helm, and growing public opposition to new military action in the Middle East.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/09/03/kerry-wont-rule-out-ground-troops-in-syria/
Kerry Won’t Rule Out Ground Troops in Syria
Insists US Won't Remove Any Option From the Table
by Jason Ditz, September 03, 2013
Though the administration has repeatedly made a point of saying that ground troops aren’t being envisioned as part of the US attack on Syria, when actually pressed on the matter Secretary of State John Kerry opened the door to them.
“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country,” Kerry insisted, saying that he could envision a ground invasion to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.
President Obama has also pushed the idea of a “broader strategy” for military offensives in the region above and beyond the initial missile strikes when talking to Congress, underscoring that the administration, while trying to make this sound like a one-and-done strike, is already cooking up plans for a much bigger war.
It’s a have your cake and eat it too effort for the administration, as they try to placate moderates with empty promises of a brief, meaningless war that they don’t need to think too much about, while reassuring their hawkish backers that once the war starts there is already plan in place, however vague, to go calamitously farther.
Key Senate committee approves Syria attack resolution — after breaking rules to rush vote
POSTED AT 5:21 PM ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT
The longer this drags on, the greater the risk that a public backlash will grow and derail passage in Congress. The obvious democratic solution: Fudge the rules a little to ram the resolution through committee ASAP. After Obama was nice enough to consult Congress for once before bombing someone, it’s the least they can do.
No one on either side of the Beltway takes our system of government very seriously anymore, do they?
“This is a rush to war behind closed doors,” one senior GOP senate aide said. “We were told there was a need to have a thoughtful and public debate about how this nation goes to war, but this seems to be about simply getting a resolution done to cover the president.”According to Senate rules, hearings should be notified seven days in advance, business meetings should be notified at least three days in advance, and members should have 24 hours to consider legislative text before having to vote on it. A spokesman for Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ) pointed out that the chairman and ranking member of the committee have the discretion to call a business meeting earlier if they both agree…The committee had announced it would debate and vote at 11:30 Wednesday morning on a resolution to authorize Obama to strike Syria. The resolution, the result of a last-minute compromise between Menendez and committee ranking Republican Bob Corker (R-TN), was given to senators the previous evening. Amendments were due at 9:45 a.m. Wednesday, before the classified briefing for members with Secretary of State John Kerry and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had ended.
They had to pass the war authorization to know what’s in it. The final vote: 10-7-1 with Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts voting “present,” which would normally qualify as the most humiliating thing a Democrat’s guilty of this week but doesn’t even crack the top five given Obama’s and Kerry’s performances lately. It wasn’t a party-line vote, either:
Voting “yes” on the resolution were Democratic Sens. Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Chris Coons (Del.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Bob Menendez (N.J.) and Tim Kaine (Va.); as well as Republicans Bob Corker (Tenn.), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), and John McCain (R-Ariz.).Voting “no” were Democrats Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Chris Murphy (D-Conn.); as well as Republicans James Risch (Idaho), Ron Johnson (Wisc.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), and big names Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).
Wait a sec — wasn’t Maverick a “no” on the Senate resolution this morning? Indeed he was, because he was unhappy that the Corker/Menendez resolution — which is already loaded withvaguely worded loopholes that Obama can exploit to launch a more aggressive attack — isn’t quite aggressive enough. His solution was to draft an amendment with Democrat Chris Coonsspecifying that “it is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield” and to “upgrad[e] the lethal and non-lethal military capabilities of vetted elements of Syrian opposition forces, including the Free Syrian Army.” In other words, Congress won’t simply be authorizing O to punch Assad in the face for using WMD. They’ll be authorizing him to throw in America’s lot fully on the side of the Syrian rebels until the “momentum” of the war is changed — theoretically a much more ambitious form of intervention. Is it at all relevant, I wonder, that the leadership of the FSA is already in the process of disintegrating? Not to Maverick, and apparently not to a majority of the Foreign Relations Committee either.
As for Rubio’s vote, it’s no surprise, but read the statement he issued after the vote. Key passage, aimed squarely at Rand Paul in order to reassure Rubio’s fans that he’s still a true blue hawk at heart:
“Let me close by recognizing that there is a movement afoot in both parties to disengage the United States from issues throughout the world. It is true, we cannot solve every crisis on the planet. But if we follow the advice of those who seek to disengage us from global issues, in the long run we will pay a terrible price. America is not just another country. It is an exceptional one. The most influential, the most powerful and the most inspirational nation on Earth. We must recognize that the world is a safer place when America is the strongest country in the world. When America doesn’t lead, chaos follows. And eventually, that chaos forces us to deal with these problems in the most expensive and the most dangerous ways imaginable. Just because we ignore global problems doesn’t mean they will ignore us. Instead, they become bigger and harder to solve. And sadly, Syria is just the latest example of that fundamental truth. Had we forcefully engaged in empowering moderate rebels, today we would have more and better options before us. But instead, unfortunately, the President, with the support of some voices in my own party, chose to let others lead instead. And now we are dealing with the consequences of that inaction.”
Exit question via Mark Krikorian:
Wednesday, September 04, 2013 1:00 PM
McCain Proposes Military Aid to Al Qaeda; Mideast Map of Who Supports Who
Inquiring minds are looking a Map of the Mideast that details who backs who in the Syrian Civil War.
Map of countries surrounding Syria (red) with military involvement.
Map of countries surrounding Syria (red) with military involvement.
- Green: Countries that have given support to the rebels.
- Blue: Countries that support the Syrian government
- Yellow: Countries that have groups that support the rebels and other groups that support the Syrian government.
- Sky Blue: Countries that have groups that support the Syrian Government.
This is pretty messy with factions in Iraq on both sides of the issue.
Who Gains From Using Chemical Weapons?
Assad had the most to lose by using chemical weapons. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar have the most to gain, especially if chemical use was attributed to Syria (not the rebels).
As noted in Warmongers Unite (As They Always Do), Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack. Here are some additional links.
- Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
- Russia suggests Syria ‘chemical attack’ carried out by rebels, provocation not ruled out
- Syrian Rebels Caught on Tape Discussing Chemical Weapons Attack
- Russia says Syrian rebels used chemical arms near Aleppo
- US-Trained Rebels Moved Towards Damascus Days Before ‘Chemical Attack’
John Kerry says US tests prove sarin used in Syria attacks
Kerry never answered the question "By Whom?"
Who Are The Rebels?
Just who are the rebels seeking to overthrow Assad?
Wikipedia has the answer in Foreign rebel fighters in the Syrian civil war
There have been a number of foreign fighters that have joined the Syrian civil war in opposition to Assad. While some are jihadists, others, such as Mahdi al-Harati, have joined to help the Syrian revolution.[59] Some fighters have come from as far away as Chechnya and Tajikistan.[60] Another group, the Al-Nusra Front, is headed by Abu Muhammad al-Julani[61] The group includes some of the rebellion's most battle-hardened and effective fighters. However, U.S. has formally designated the Al Nusra Front as a foreign terrorist organization. "Extremist groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are a problem, an obstacle to finding the political solution that Syria's going to need," said the American ambassador to Syria, Robert Ford.[62]McCain Says "Arm the Rebels"
Al-Qaeda and affiliates are anti-Assad. American officials believe that Al-Qaeda in Iraq has conducted bomb attacks against government forces,[63] and al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri condemned Assad.[64] Several groups, such as the Abdullah Azzam Shaheed Brigade, al-Nusra Front and Fatah al-Islam[65] have stated that they conducted operations in Syria. Jihadist leaders and intelligence sources said foreign fighters had begun to enter Syria only in February 2012.[66] In May 2012, Syria's U.N. envoy Bashar Ja'afari declared that dozens of foreign fighters from Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Britain, France and elsewhere had been captured or killed, and urged Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey to stop "their sponsorship of the armed rebellion".[67] In June, it was reported that hundreds of foreign fighters, many linked to al-Qaeda, had gone to Syria to fight against Assad.[68] In July, Iraq's foreign minister again warned that members of al-Qaeda in Iraq were seeking refuge in Syria and moving there to fight.[69] When asked if the United States would arm the opposition, Hillary Clinton expressed fears that such weapons could fall into the hands of al-Qaeda or Hamas.[70] In October 2012, the United States expressed concern and confirmed that most of the weapons fall into the hands of radical Islamist rebels.[71]
Bloomberg reports McCain Balks on Syria Measure Absent More Rebel Support
McCain, opposing the resolution in its current form, will seek changes to include provisions for arming Syrian rebels and assurances that military strikes would be able to deter further Syrian use of chemical weapons, according to an aide who asked not to be named because he wasn’t authorized to speak publicly.
McCain wants to arm the rebels, but if we arm the rebels, we arm Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and other foreign terrorist organizations. It's as simple as that.
Warmongers like McCain do not care about such things. They just want war.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2013/09/04/Ted-Cruz-US-Is-Not-Al-Qaedas-Air-Force
On Tuesday, Sen. Ted Cruz distilled the current debate over possible military action in Syria to its essential dilemma. While Syrian President Bashar Assad is certainly a ruthless dictator, the forces aligned against him are dominated by jihadis and elements of terrorist organizations. Cruz noted that Americans didn't enlist in the military to "serve as Al-Qaeda's Air Force."
“We certainly don’t have a dog in the fight,” Cruz said, calling it a civil war in Syria. “We should be focused on defending the United States of America. That’s why young men and women sign up to join the military, not to, as you know, serve as Al Qaeda’s air force.”
Cruz noted that of the nine major rebel groups, seven have ties to Al-Qaeda. Cruz's colleagues, Sens. McCain and Graham, are pushing the Obama Administration to arm rebel forces with heavy weapons. It is unclear how the US would ensure that its weapons would go exclusively to the "right" rebel forces. Even if they were, it is likely that any post-Assad regime would be dominated by elements loyal to Al-Qaeda.
“I’ll give you one of the simplest principles of foreign policy that we ought to be following," Cruz said. "Don’t give weapons to people who hate you. Don’t give weapons to people who want to kill you."
http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/
Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.
A statement released by the ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the results of the UN investigation have not yet been revealed.”
By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.
But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.
The key points of the report have been given as follows:
• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;
• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;
• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”
The findings of the report are “extremely specific,” as they mostly consist of scientific and technical data from probes’ analysis, the ministry stressed, adding that this data can “substantially aid” the UN investigation of the incident.
While focusing on the Khan al-Assal attack on March 19, in which at least 26 civilians and Syrian army soldiers were killed, and 86 more were injured, the Russian Foreign Ministry also criticized the “flawed selective approach” of certain states in reporting the recent incidents of alleged chemical weapons use in August.
The hype around the alleged attack on the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta showed “apparent attempts to cast a veil over the incidents of gas poisoning of Syrian army soldiers on August 22, 24 and 25,” the ministry said, adding that all the respective evidence was handed to the UN by Syria.
The condition of the soldiers who, according to Damascus, suffered poisoning after discovering tanks with traces of sarin, has been examined and documented by the UN inspectors, the ministry pointed out, adding that “any objective investigation of the August 21 incident in eastern Ghouta is impossible without the consideration of all these facts.”
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday said the UN investigators are set to return to Syria to investigate several other cases of alleged chemical weapons use, including the March 19 incident in Khan al-Assal.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-syria-crisis-russia-congress-idUSBRE9830N620130904
(Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the U.S. Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syriawithout a decision from the U.N. Security Council, and that doing so would be an "act of aggression".
He said "anything that is outside the U.N. Security Council is aggression, except self-defense. Now what Congress and the U.S. Senate are doing in essence is legitimizing aggression. This is inadmissible in principle."
In remarks that could raise tension further before he hosts President Barack Obama and other G20 leaders on Thursday, Putin also said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lied to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda's role in the Syrian conflict.
"They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: 'Is al Qaeda there?' He says: 'No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not'," Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.
"Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this," he said, referring to the United States. "It was unpleasant and surprising for me - we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It's sad."
Putin did not give any more details.
In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was "basically true" that the Syrian opposition had "become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: "No, that is actually basically not true. It's basically incorrect".
In another sign of tension, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that since August 31, the U.S. State Department had repeatedly asked for a telephone call between Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov but Kerry had been unavailable and declined to set a time for the call.
http://rt.com/news/syria-crisis-live-updates-047/
Wednesday, September 4
22:00 GMT: The White House praised the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for passing an authorization of military force against Syria hours after questioning top administration officials on potential strikes.
"We commend the Senate for moving swiftly and for working across party lines on behalf of our national security," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
The resolution now goes to the full Senate for debate. The bill needs 60 votes to ultimately pass.
21:53 GMT: Former Syrian Defense Minister Ali Habib has not fled the country, state television reported Wednesday.
"There is no truth to what the media has reported on the travel of former defence minister Ali Habib Mahmoud outside of Syria and he is still in his home," Syrian state television quoted an official source as saying.
A top member of the opposition Syrian National Coalition had previously told Reuters Habib had defected to Turkey.
21:43 GMT: Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.
A statement released by the ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the results of the UN investigation have not yet been revealed.”
By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.
But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.
21:23 GMT: US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel insisted that any military strike on Syria for use of chemical weapons would significantly reduce President Bashar Assad's military might.
"The president has said ... this would not be a pin prick. Those were his words. This would be a significant strike that would in fact degrade his capability," Hagel said during a hearing in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which will consider authorizing use of military force in the coming days.
Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry agreed that “likelihood is very high” Assad would use chemical weapons again should the US not use force.
Hagel added during the hearing that a limited military strike campaign in Syria would likely cost “tens of millions” of dollars.
"We have looked at the different costs, depending on the different options," Hagel said. "It would be in the tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range."
21:00 GMT: During Wednesday afternoon’s hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested that the Assad regime received some of their alleged chemical weapons arsenal from Russia.
“There’s no secret that the Assad regime has had chemical weapons, significant stockpiles of chemical weapons,” Hagel said.
When asked by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) to elaborate, Hagel responded, "The Russians supply them, others are supplying them with those chemical weapons, they make some themselves.”
18:13 GMT: Rep. Brian Higgins (D-New York) questioned the United States’ potential involvement in the Syrian civil war by insisting that the US should concentrate on its domestic endeavors, not efforts abroad.
“The American people are sick and tired of war,” Higgins told Secretary of State John Kerry. “It’s time to nation build — in America.”
18:07 GMT: Answering critique from Rep. Ted Deutsh (D-Florida) about America’s potential role in the Syrian civil war, Secretary of State told the committee, "The United States of America is not being the world’s policeman."
17:23 GMT: Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that a meeting and potentially a vote could occur as early as 2 p.m. local time, or 1800 GMT, today.
16:48 GMT: According to Reuters, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to vote later today on the draft resolution presented on Tuesday which would authorize the use of military force in Syria
16:36 GMT: Secretary of State John Kerry is again the lead witness during a Congressional hearing in Washington, this time one hosted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
During Wednesday afternoon testimony, Kerry said that new evidence has surfaced only hours earlier linking Assad’s regime to the August 21 attack near Damascus that the White House says killed over 1,400 people.
Meanwhile, anti-war protesters with the group Code Pink assembled during the hearing seated behind Kerry. International television cameras captured the demonstrators with symbolic “blood” on their hands.
14:58 GMT: Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized remarks made by the US Secretary of State John Kerry at the Congressional debate, saying Kerry “lied” by claiming there was no Al-Qaeda militants fighting in Syria and that the military strike against President Assad will not boost the terrorist network’s presence in the region.
“Well, he [Kerry] lies. And he knows that he lies. This is sad,” Putin remarked as he spoke to human rights activists on Wednesday, saying that the Al-Nusra Front terrorist organization, which pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, has been at the forefront of the rebel groups fighting Assad’s forces, and that the US is well aware of that.
Speaking of Kerry’s confidence in that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons, Putin recalled former US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s rhetoric on the eve of American invasion in Iraq. It later turned out that all Powell’s arguments that Iraq had chemical weapons “did not hold water,” the Russian President stressed.
13:40 GMT: President Barack Obama said the credibility of the US Congress was on the line regarding the need to uphold a ban on chemical weapons in Syria.
"My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line," he told a news conference in Sweden. "America and Congress's credibility is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Obama added.
13:16 GMT: US President Barack Obama urged the international community to respond effectively to chemical weapons’ use in Syria during his statement at a press conference in Sweden.
A "real strong message” to Assad must be sent to ‘degrade’ his ability to use chemical weapons again, the President added.
Obama stated that he was not required to submit proposals for military action to Congress for approval, but also said that not doing so was no empty exercise.
10:20 GMT: Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan reiterated on Wednesday that Turkey would take part in any international coalition against Syria but didn't say whether that would include military action.
00:47 GMT: A new US Senate draft resolution for authorizing use of military force in Syria sets a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible, while barring ground forces.
The resolution was drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster by opponents.
The draft follows Tuesday’s hearing on Syria featuring testimony from US Secretary of State John Kerry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
00:30 GMT: Though not yet in session, members of the US House of Representatives have released two separate draft resolutions on potential US military action in Syria, Politico reported.
Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), a top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, offered a resolution calling for President Obama to consult with Congress within 60 days to provide information on nine fronts to justify the use of military force.
The resolution would require a summary of “attempts to build a coalition; a ‘detailed plan for military action in Syria, including specific goals and military objectives;’ what would qualify as degrading the chemical weapons supply; an explanation how a limited military strike would encourage regime change, prevent terrorists from taking control of power or weapons, secure the chemical weapons and deter their future use; how a strike would prevent Iran and Russia from keeping Assad in power; information about Al Qaeda’s access to weapons; an explanation of whether weapons from Libya are being used by the Syrian opposition and an estimation of the cost.”
The other resolution, offered by Democrats Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), is also supportive of a Syria attack but seeks to narrow the scope of any such action. Their resolution bars use of ground forces, limits attacks to 60 days while prohibiting a second series of attacks -- unless the Obama administration has proof Assad used chemical weapons again -- and says an attack on Syria can only happen to prevent use, not stockpiling, of chemical weapons.
"We commend the Senate for moving swiftly and for working across party lines on behalf of our national security," White House press secretary Jay Carney said in a statement.
The resolution now goes to the full Senate for debate. The bill needs 60 votes to ultimately pass.
By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.
But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.
21:23 GMT: US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel insisted that any military strike on Syria for use of chemical weapons would significantly reduce President Bashar Assad's military might.
"The president has said ... this would not be a pin prick. Those were his words. This would be a significant strike that would in fact degrade his capability," Hagel said during a hearing in front of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, which will consider authorizing use of military force in the coming days.
Hagel and Secretary of State John Kerry agreed that “likelihood is very high” Assad would use chemical weapons again should the US not use force.
Hagel added during the hearing that a limited military strike campaign in Syria would likely cost “tens of millions” of dollars.
"We have looked at the different costs, depending on the different options," Hagel said. "It would be in the tens of millions of dollars, that kind of range."
21:00 GMT: During Wednesday afternoon’s hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel suggested that the Assad regime received some of their alleged chemical weapons arsenal from Russia.
“There’s no secret that the Assad regime has had chemical weapons, significant stockpiles of chemical weapons,” Hagel said.
When asked by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-South Carolina) to elaborate, Hagel responded, "The Russians supply them, others are supplying them with those chemical weapons, they make some themselves.”
18:13 GMT: Rep. Brian Higgins (D-New York) questioned the United States’ potential involvement in the Syrian civil war by insisting that the US should concentrate on its domestic endeavors, not efforts abroad.
“The American people are sick and tired of war,” Higgins told Secretary of State John Kerry. “It’s time to nation build — in America.”
18:07 GMT: Answering critique from Rep. Ted Deutsh (D-Florida) about America’s potential role in the Syrian civil war, Secretary of State told the committee, "The United States of America is not being the world’s policeman."
17:23 GMT: Senator Robert Menendez, chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, told reporters that a meeting and potentially a vote could occur as early as 2 p.m. local time, or 1800 GMT, today.
16:48 GMT: According to Reuters, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is expected to vote later today on the draft resolution presented on Tuesday which would authorize the use of military force in Syria
16:36 GMT: Secretary of State John Kerry is again the lead witness during a Congressional hearing in Washington, this time one hosted by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
During Wednesday afternoon testimony, Kerry said that new evidence has surfaced only hours earlier linking Assad’s regime to the August 21 attack near Damascus that the White House says killed over 1,400 people.
Meanwhile, anti-war protesters with the group Code Pink assembled during the hearing seated behind Kerry. International television cameras captured the demonstrators with symbolic “blood” on their hands.
14:58 GMT: Russian President Vladimir Putin criticized remarks made by the US Secretary of State John Kerry at the Congressional debate, saying Kerry “lied” by claiming there was no Al-Qaeda militants fighting in Syria and that the military strike against President Assad will not boost the terrorist network’s presence in the region.
“Well, he [Kerry] lies. And he knows that he lies. This is sad,” Putin remarked as he spoke to human rights activists on Wednesday, saying that the Al-Nusra Front terrorist organization, which pledged allegiance to Al-Qaeda, has been at the forefront of the rebel groups fighting Assad’s forces, and that the US is well aware of that.
Speaking of Kerry’s confidence in that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons, Putin recalled former US Secretary of State Colin Powell’s rhetoric on the eve of American invasion in Iraq. It later turned out that all Powell’s arguments that Iraq had chemical weapons “did not hold water,” the Russian President stressed.
13:40 GMT: President Barack Obama said the credibility of the US Congress was on the line regarding the need to uphold a ban on chemical weapons in Syria.
"My credibility is not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line," he told a news conference in Sweden. "America and Congress's credibility is on the line, because we give lip service to the notion that these international norms are important," Obama added.
13:16 GMT: US President Barack Obama urged the international community to respond effectively to chemical weapons’ use in Syria during his statement at a press conference in Sweden.
A "real strong message” to Assad must be sent to ‘degrade’ his ability to use chemical weapons again, the President added.
Obama stated that he was not required to submit proposals for military action to Congress for approval, but also said that not doing so was no empty exercise.
10:20 GMT: Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan reiterated on Wednesday that Turkey would take part in any international coalition against Syria but didn't say whether that would include military action.
00:47 GMT: A new US Senate draft resolution for authorizing use of military force in Syria sets a 60-day deadline, with one 30-day extension possible, while barring ground forces.
The resolution was drafted by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. The resolution needs 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster by opponents.
The draft follows Tuesday’s hearing on Syria featuring testimony from US Secretary of State John Kerry, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.
00:30 GMT: Though not yet in session, members of the US House of Representatives have released two separate draft resolutions on potential US military action in Syria, Politico reported.
Rep. Devin Nunes (Calif.), a top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, offered a resolution calling for President Obama to consult with Congress within 60 days to provide information on nine fronts to justify the use of military force.
The resolution would require a summary of “attempts to build a coalition; a ‘detailed plan for military action in Syria, including specific goals and military objectives;’ what would qualify as degrading the chemical weapons supply; an explanation how a limited military strike would encourage regime change, prevent terrorists from taking control of power or weapons, secure the chemical weapons and deter their future use; how a strike would prevent Iran and Russia from keeping Assad in power; information about Al Qaeda’s access to weapons; an explanation of whether weapons from Libya are being used by the Syrian opposition and an estimation of the cost.”
The other resolution, offered by Democrats Rep. Gerry Connolly (Va.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (Md.), is also supportive of a Syria attack but seeks to narrow the scope of any such action. Their resolution bars use of ground forces, limits attacks to 60 days while prohibiting a second series of attacks -- unless the Obama administration has proof Assad used chemical weapons again -- and says an attack on Syria can only happen to prevent use, not stockpiling, of chemical weapons.
Hi Fred, crazy times we live in when you can vote for a 60 day war with an option to extend by 30 days. We're not full of hubris are we?
ReplyDeleteStill figuring out the new format, did look back at some older posts but couldn't find my comment from yesterday.
Yeah , the new format is just a real dumb downed ( non dynamic ) template - the problem with dynamic was it really screwed up with trying to reply to comments .... and then it really went haywire and I lost patience with it. With this format , it's a little less interesting to look at , but I can address comments easily.
ReplyDeleteThe crazy times are here and we live in Crazy Town ( that would be the US ) ..... Obama and Kerry would be a pretty good comedic team ( I enjoyed the " Red Line " bit yesterday - which proved to me the two clearly don't talk. Hubris is not in short order with our " leaders " ( McCain caught playing poker on his phone during Wednesday's Senate Hearing on Syria , who would write that even in The Onion ? )