US political front - are there votes in the House and / or Senate anyway ?

217 House members on record as likely to oppose authorizing military force against #Syria, per @ABCPolitics count. that's a majority, folks.

Would the Pols be insane ( or desperate enough to actually have the Syria War Resolution on the twelfth anniversary of the 9-11 attacks ? Trial ( lead ) balloon floated ....

Senate may vote on Syria res on 9-11, said Rep John Culberson, citing an email from his COS, who cited Cantor

2:38 PM - 5 Sep 2013

A House Divided: Obama Lacks Votes For Syrian Attack

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 09/05/2013 12:15 -0400

War-weary 'real' Americans appear to have the ear of their representatives (for once). Message such as "you don't stop a war by getting involved and shooting more," and "once you start launching missiles, anything can happen," appear to have moved both the staunchest tea-party Republican and the most anti-war Democrats to shun the position of Boehner and Pelosi. As Bloomberg reports, only about 20 members (or 5%) of the House is publicly supporting a military strike. Against this, 68 lawmakers (an uncomfortable alliance of Dems and Reps) are actively opposed to a strike. 350 House members are 'undecided', with 217 required to make or break the vote.With 60 votes required in the Senate, Obama can currently only count on 20 'confirmed' yesses. Obama's problem arises from the fact that whipping the members in line is tough with a number of different strains of thought resisting Obama's urgings.

Via Bloomberg,

Most normally follow but...Republican U.S. House Speaker John Boehner and Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi voted the same way just five times in the past three years. Every time, the House has followed their lead.

That may change when it comes to Syria. Boehner and Pelosi are among about 20 members -- or about 5 percent of the House -- publicly supporting a military strike so far.

Some don’t think the U.S. has any business intervening in Syria’s civil war, no matter how limited the strikes, a point of view exemplified by one Tea Party favorite, Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky... “This isn’t our responsibility,” Florida Representative Alan Grayson, a liberal Democrat opposing the measure, said in an interview. “There isn’t a single American casualty up to this point in the Syrian civil war and I’d like to keep it that way.”

Others, including Democrats in the Congressional Black Caucus, are torn between loyalty to the president and their natural anti-war inclinations...

One of the clearest signs is reluctant members of the Congressional Black Caucus, who have typically opposed war yet don’t want to rebuke the nation’s first black president... “The people in my district are war-worn,”Cleaver said in an interview. “The response from my constituents is overwhelmingly no.”

Others simply don’t think Obama’s plan for a limited strike will deter Assad... “Once you start launching missiles, anything can happen,” said Amash, a second-term lawmaker who opposes the resolution.

or want Obama to more forcefully back anti-Assad rebels with more and heavier arms.

Some, like Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, say Obama’s call for action is too little, too late.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/05/pelosi-i-dont-know-if-obama-can-get-a-majority-of-house-democrats-to-support-a-syria-attack/

Pelosi: I don’t know if Obama can get a majority of House Democrats to support a Syria attack

POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

With every new whip count I see, I’m more confident that the Senate will spare O the humiliation of a House landslide by killing the Syria resolution itself. At last check, WaPo has the House at 19 likely yays versus 178 likely nays; Adrian Gray has it at 47/187; ABC has it at 45/199; and Think Progress, which counted 169 nays yesterday afternoon, has now hit the 200 mark with only 49 yays offsetting.

Remember, if you believe what Pelosi said yesterday, she’s not whipping House Democrats on this. There is, in theory, no pressure from the Democratic leadership in Congress to take one for the team here. Endgame for intervention?

Can you get a majority of your caucus? Is that important?

I don’t know. I think it would be important to get a majority in the Congress. But I don’t know if it’s important how you would break it down. These issues are not really partisan…

What was your reaction to the decision to bring this to Congress?

I was encouraging consultation. I did not believe that the President needs to get authorization from Congress. I think that it is great that he asked for it. I think that it strengthens his hand, and our country’s hand, and our moral standing to Bashar Assad to have Congress support it. But it’s a challenge for the reasons you mentioned. It’s a challenge because the country is weary of war. This is a president who has taken us out of two wars. He has unwound the Iraq War and now the Afghanistan War. He knows, as Commander-in-chief, better than anybody how weary of war our country is.

And so it came to be that Pelosi, who rose to power as Speaker promising that Congress would check the renegade president in his quixotic mission against a gas-wielding Baathist, now thinks congressional approval isn’t necessary against Assad. Follow the link and read the rest of the interview, where she strains hard to distinguish the Iraq war from this while also insisting that using WMD is an eternal international red line. I can only assume that if Assad promised not to use gas again for at least 15 years, Pelosi would be willing to let him slide the same way she was apparently okay with letting Saddam slide on the red line for having used it against the Kurds years before the U.S. attacked. You’d trust him if he said that, wouldn’t you? Nancy evidently trusted that Saddam’s gas-spraying days were over. Why not give the lunatic in Damascus the benefit of the doubt too?

Lots of stories in the news today about skittish House Dems balking at Syria — this one, about anti-war Rep. Gerry Connolly straining to find a “principled” exception to his philosophy for his party’s president, is my favorite — but Obama still has cards to play. There’s still a classified briefing on Assad’s WMD for Congress to come; there may be an Oval Office address in the works; there may also be a media campaign to show the public what a gas attack does to its victims, especially children. Polls show that public skepticism does tend to soften when WMD is introduced into the calculus of whether to go to war. And of course, there’s apt to be some out-and-out vote-buying. If partisan loyalty can’t dragoon Democrats into voting with O, maybe bribes can:

“I think the White House candy store is open,”said John Bolton, a former U.N. ambassador under President Bush who opposes a military strike against Syria, on Fox News Tuesday. “What do you need for your district or state? A post office? A new military facility? What do you want? I think anything you want you’re going to get because the White House is going to do whatever it takes to get a majority.”

So we have the irony that, even as the administration’s arguments for intervention become less coherent, its chances of prevailing by playing on tribal loyalties and the use of “non-policy” arguments are increasing.

And people thought the pressure and the wheeling and dealing that forced through passage of Obamacare were unseemly.

If I worked in the White House, my worry now wouldn’t be trying to win the House vote. It’d be trying to minimize the embarrassment of losing the vote overwhelmingly, along bipartisan lines. If he can win back some liberals and force the GOP to block the measure with a heavy majority of its own caucus, then at least Obama can blame Republican obstructionism for his problems. How likely is it that he can win those liberals over, though? Per the Journal, the lefty PAC Progressive Change Campaign Committee polled 55,000 of its one million members on Syria — and found 73 percent opposed. Democratic voters generally are also opposed, albeit less heavily. Which probably explains Pelosi’s reluctance to whip the caucus: If this thing’s headed for defeat via Republican opposition, with her own base perfectly fine with that, what’s her incentive to go to the mat for O?

Exit question: Why isn’t OFA pushing hard for Syria intervention either? Does O want to lose this vote?

Update: Hope springs eternal:

Aides believe that many of those who say they are leaning No are not necessarily at that point. Aides believe there’s a lot of pressure on Dems — given the unpopularity of strikes with constituents, as reflected in the polls, and given some of the pressure being directed to offices by liberal groups — to downplay the possibility of a Yes vote later. So aides think the whip counts don’t tell the real story…

Dem aides believe they probably need around 120-130 Dems for the resolution to pass, because they think they’ll get around 90-100 Republicans (with most voting No). They think that they can get there. This would draw on Yes votes from 40 or so hawkish, interventionist Dems types who will be persuadable by groups like AIPAC; plus a sizable bloc of moderate Dems who aren’t too worried about the Dem base and will be genuinely gettable; plus some more votes drawn from around several dozen hard-to-classify Dems who are more focused on domestic affairs. Dem aides think they can get the numbers they need even if around 60 progressive Dems prove ungettable.

Some late day mockery - Are not in Wonderland ?

http://www.michellesmirror.com/2013/09/the-russian-bear-hug-for-flexible.html

Thursday, September 5, 2013

The Russian Bear Hug for the Flexible American Lyin’

As if things weren’t frosty enough leading up to today’s showdown in ~~Leningrad~~ St. Petersburg

The official handshake: stay flexible my friend!

between the Russian Bear and the American Lyin’. Then Putin has to go and up the ante yesterday by calling the American Lyin’s surrogate a liar too.

Welcome to my lair, Mr. Smarty Pants

"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, according to Reuters.

"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."

And what sort of treason is this? It looks like even the NYT has come down cleanly on Putin’s side:

“Much of the concern among American officials has focused on two groups that acknowledge ties to Al Qaeda. These groups — the Nusra Front and the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria — have attracted foreign jihadis, used terrorist tactics and vowed to create a society in Syria ruled by their severe interpretation of Islamic law.”

“The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.”

And these are the good guys? Boy, possibly for the first time in his adult life, Barack Hussein Obama can accurately cite his favorite line: he really did inherit a big mess; from himself, unfortunately.
Butt I think I’ve found a face-saving out for him; right here, buried deep in the NYT article:

“The video ends abruptly after his fighters dump the soldiers’ broken bodies into a well. “

I’m quite certain the EPA Crimes Against Humanity Task Force would disapprove of that type of water pollution; oh sure, it isn’t as bad as mining or – God-forbid - fracking, butt do wereally want to condone that type of behavior?

Chapter VIII, The Queen’s Croquet-Ground, by Lewis Carroll^*

A large rose tree stood near the entrance to the garden:the roses growing on it were white, but there were three gardeners at it, busily painting them red.'

Alice thought this a very curious thing, and she went nearer to watch them, and just as she came up to them she heard one of them say, `Look out now, Five! Don't go splashing paint over me like that!

`I couldn't help it,' said Five, in a sulky tone; `Seven jogged my elbow.'

On which Seven looked up and said, `That's right, Five! Always lay the blame on others!'

James Carville re. Syria on the O’Reilly Factor last night:

O’REILLY: You’re going to blame Bush?

CARVILLE: Of course,

`YOU'D better not talk!'said Five. `I heard the Queen say only yesterday you deserved to be beheaded!'

`What for?' said the one who had spoken first.

`That's none of YOUR business, Two!' said Seven.

`Yes, it IS his business!' said Five, `and I'll tell him--it was for bringing the cook tulip-roots instead of onions.'

Al-Qaeda-linked rebels assault Syrian Christian village: tulip roots

Seven flung down his brush, and had just begun `Well, of all the unjust things--' when his eye chanced to fall upon Alice, as she stood watching them, and he checked himself suddenly: the others looked round also, and all of them bowed low. `Would you tell me,' said Alice, a little timidly, `why you are painting those roses?'

Five and Seven said nothing, but looked at Two.

Two began in a low voice, `Why the fact is, you see, Miss, this here ought to have been a RED rose-tree, and we put a white one in by mistake;

It’s so hard to tell them apart before they’re in full bloom

and if the Queen was to find it out, we should all have our heads cut off, you know. So you see, Miss, we're doing our best, afore she comes, to--' At this moment Five, who had been anxiously looking across the garden, called out `The Queen! The Queen!' and the three gardeners instantly threw themselves flat upon their faces.

There was a sound of many footsteps, and Alice looked round, eager to see the Queen:

Honestly Vladie, I’m just not sure how much more flexibility I’ve got.

and.....

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Obama’s Syrian Objective: “It doesn’t matter which way you go, so long as I get somewhere.”

This morning, Big Guy is in Sweden, ~~rambling on and on~~ speaking at length about Syria; explaining and re-explaining that the red line that has been attributed to him was actually theworld’s red line – here-to-forth known as “le ligne rouge dans le sable.”
This new tact is no doubt the work of his old trusted team of really big brains: the Axelrod, Gibbs, Plouffe and Favreau Brain Squad (BS) team was called into an emergency session yesterday to “coordinate the administration’s message strategy on Syria,” as it continued to spin totally out of control, i.e., Big Guy’s favorability polls are dropping like rockets. Because everyone knows that what we need now, more than a strategy, is a messagestrategy.

Destination Unknown, butt we’re sending a harsh message never-the-less

Maybe the BS would be better utilized going to work for General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who’s still unable to tell Congress exactly what the U.S. is seeking to accomplish in Syria.

Butt we’ve got a lot of ~~Cheshire cats~~ really big brains to help us discover the purpose to be gained by bombing the Syrians:

BS team: Plouffe-daddy, Jon Favreau (groping Hil), Axe-man and Baghdad Bob

Also helpful for the folks back home was BO’s explanation that his politics – sometimes called “socialist” by his critics in the US – would be considered center of the political spectrum, or possibly even center left or right in Europe. Let the record reflect however that since Europe already is socialist, being in the middle of the pack or even “slightly left or right of center” still ensconces you firmly in the socialist camp. Not to let nits like that get in the way of a good point.

Then Big Guy continued, ~~painfully, stumbling and stuttering~~ obviously jet-lagged, to slog his way through the press conference. He took the opportunity to respond to any question he was asked with yet more insights into why he decided le ligne rouge dans le sable drawn by the whole WORLD should be responded to by US forces, exclusively. Without the UN’s blessings.
This turn of tables is clearly the result of having called in the Brain Squad (BS) whose sole strategy in the past has been to blame stuff on everybody else. BO then criticized the do-nothing Congress for dithering on the authorization of his “Syria Accountability Act” or, as ACE calls it, “Operation Enduring Hesitation.” And while the BS team likes that turn of phrase, they’ve softened it to “Operation Enduring Dithering.”
Anyway, then some Swedish reporter spoiled everything by asking BO to reconcile his previously stated “eloquent position on non-violence” to his proposed strike on Syria. Big Guy directed her to read the speech he gave when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, in which he said he “was not worthy.” Boy, that’s become painfully obvious, hasn’t it?

“You will follow me down this rabbit hole to wherever it leads.”

Smart power ?

Smart power: Pentagon “clairifies” Hagel claim that Russia supplied chemical weapons to Syria

POSTED AT 1:46 PM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Consider this part of the meta narrative of Obama administration incompetence:

It all happened in an exchange with Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., during which Hagel said it’s no secret that the Assad regime has significant stockpiles of chemical weapons.

When Wilson asked where they’d come from, Hagel said, “Well, the Russians supply them. Others are supplying them with those chemical weapons. They make some themselves.”

After the hearing had concluded, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little issued a clarification, explaining that Hagel was referring to the “well-known conventional arms relationship between Syria and Russia.”

Recall that this is the kind of damaging stumble that critics predicted when Barack Obama picked Hagel as his Secretary of Defense — and in fact occurred during his confirmation hearing. This is one of the two Cabinet members sent to Congress to reassure Capitol Hill that the Obama administration knows what it’s doing on Syria, the other being John “Bombing Another Country Isn’t Really War-War” Kerry.

Heaven help us.

and.....

Reuters: Kerry’s sunny estimate of Syrian opposition not backed up by intelligence

POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

John Kerry has come to Capitol Hill to deliver the hard-sell on war against Bashar al-Assad, but Reuters reports that his supporting data is rather suspect. Kerry insists, as does John McCain, that the Free Syrian Army controls the opposition in Syria and that radical Islamist elements comprise only a small percentage of rebel fighting units. However, intelligence from US and European agencies put the radical Islamists near parity in numbers, and far more in control than Kerry and the Obama administration acknowledge:

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 nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements. …

U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.

While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.

Kerry insists that FSA’s General Salim Idriss has control, and the opposition is even holding elections for its leaders:

Kerry replied: “I just don’t agree that a majority are al Qaeda and the bad guys. That’s not true. There are about 70,000 to 100,000 oppositionists … Maybe 15 percent to 25 percent might be in one group or another who are what we would deem to be bad guys.

“There is a real moderate opposition that exists. General Idriss is running the military arm of that,” Kerry continued, referring to General Salim Idriss, head of the rebel Free Syrian Army. Increasingly, he said, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states are funneling assistance through Idriss.

According to Foreign Policy, though — hardly a conservative mouthpiece on foreign affairs — Idriss’ grasp on the opposition is crumbling, and may have been ephemeral all along. Instead, his commanders have suddenly developed a taste for working with the elements that Kerry insists are too small to matter:

As the United States moves closer to taking military action against the Syrian government, the leadership of the mainstream armed opposition force has chosen a curious time to appear to be on the verge of unraveling. Known generically as the Free Syrian Army (FSA), this assortment of mostly secular defecting Sunni Arab officers and mostly Islamist volunteers has attempted several reorganizations. The most recent of these is now seriously threatened by a resignation threat from senior commanders. …

On August 22, four of the five front commanders threatened to resign from the SMC, promising to break “red lines” and work “with all forces fighting in Syria,” a clear reference to the war’s growing Salafist-Jihadist contingent. The statement was read by Colonel Fatih Hasun, who is the commander of the SMC’s Homs Front and the deputy chief-of-staff, that is to say, Idriss’s deputy and the most senior officer inside the country. Hasun added that rebels would no longer respect demands by outside powers that they not attempt to take over government-controlled chemical weapons sites. In addition to demanding action in response to the government’s use of chemical weapons in Damascus, Hasun also demanded better weapons and said they were tiring of the “false promises of those who call themselves Friends of Syria.”

While the resignation seemed tentative, Hasun was less equivocal about the other red line — the opposition’s Salafist-Jihadist groups, Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) — both of which the United States has designated as terrorist entities linked to al Qaeda. Directly behind Hasun on the wall was an Islamic flag, with a pre-Assad Syria FSA flag draped to the side, a nod perhaps to the Salafists. Sitting to his right was a bearded cleric in Salafist garb. He directly stated, “we call upon all” FSA units to work with all others fighting the regime. Adding insult to injury, on August 25 Muhammad Tabnaja, field commander in Latakia for the Ahfad al-Faruq Brigade in Latakia, resigned citing the lack of support from the SMC.

If Idriss is in control and opposed to the radical Islamist elements, he would have acted forcefully to put down this rebellion within the rebellion. In the event, though, Idriss apparently couldn’t do anything:

Most telling is what happened when the SMC’s decision removing Akaydi was announced. Akaydi ignored it, then after brigade-level commanders within the AMC rejected the decision, he did an interview in which he mocked the SMC as made up of people “who are into travel and hotels and have no connection to what is happening on the ground.” He did clear Idriss of involvement, however, and Idriss promptly apologized to Akaydi and then traveled to Aleppo to meet with him and praise him. …

Idriss responded to Hasun’s threatened resignation by saying he “rejected” it, as if he had the power to do so.

Is the White House following the intelligence of its own agencies and that of its allies? Is it even following the public events that demonstrate the lack of effectiveness in the FSA and the rise of al-Qaeda-affiliated leadership in the Syrian rebellion? Or are they just so concerned about preventing Barack Obama’s humiliation that they don’t care?

Addendum: The New York Times offers a profile of one group that illustrates the problem of choosing sides in this fight:

At first, people who know Mr. Issa said, he was a protester, and then he led fighters in small skirmishes. By last year he was running a training camp in the highlands near Turkey.

By this year, the aide said, he was gathering weapons from relatives and Arab businessmen he knew from his work as a trader and, at least once, from the Western-supported Supreme Military Council of the Free Syrian Army, the rebel forces.

(Two representatives of the military council declined to comment on the council’s military collaboration or logistical support for Mr. Issa’s group. Mr. Issa could not be reached for comment over two days this week.)

By the spring, his group had taken a resonant name: Jund al-Sham, which it shares with three international terrorist groups, and another group in Syria.

Its relationship — if any — with these other groups is not clear.

Mr. Issa’s former aide and two other men who have met or investigated him said he appears to assume identities of convenience.

But, they said, one of his tactics has been to promise to his fighters what he calls “the extermination” of Alawites — the minority Islamic sect to which the Assad family belongs, and which Mr. Issa blames for Syria’s suffering.

“The Uncle,” as Issa is known, and his group released a celebratory video last week of the execution of seven prisoners they had captured, along with The Uncle’s poem pledging revenge on all Alawites.

and.....

Kerry: Why yes, some Arab countries have offered to foot the entire bill if we “go do the whole thing” in Syria

POSTED AT 8:01 PM ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Via RCP, that sounds like a deal, no? We send our boys to be the tip of the Sunni spear in a sectarian war against the Shiites and in return Saudi and Qatari oilbags cut us a check for $100 billion or whatever. I wonder how much they’d be willing to pay for a direct attack on Iran. We could structure a compensation scheme based on casualties: 500 dead American servicemen gets us $200 billion, 1,000 dead gets us $500 billion, and so on. Put enough guys in harm’s way and we could conceivably erase this year’s deficit. Or, alternately, give Iran the right to match the offer. If they can come up with a few hundred billion, we’ll drone the Syrian Salafi nuts of their choice.

How was this offer even broached, I wonder. Was Kerry not a bit insulted at the idea of Arab dictators trying to rent American pilots as de facto Sunni mercenaries? Didn’t he once famously, in another lifetime, lament sending men off to die for a mistake? Even in the course of ruling out boots on the ground, he seems to be touting the proposal as something impressive, evidence of how seriously our “allies” are treating Assad’s aggression. Ros-Lehtinen seems unfazed too. Tells you a lot about our role in the modern Middle East that no one blinks at the Secretary of State mentioning that Sunni oligarchs would happily pay us to do their dirty work as a reason in support of going to war.

Smarter power ?

China sides with Russia in opposing military strikes on Syria, warns of oil price surge

Published time: September 05, 2013 22:10

Get short URL

Russia's President Vladimir Putin (L) welcomes China's President Xi Jinping before the first working session of the G20 Summit in Constantine Palace in Strelna near St. Petersburg, September 5, 2013.(Reuters / Grigory Dukor)

Share on tumblr

Russia releases 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for March chemical attack

POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Russia claims that it has definitive evidence linking a chemical-weapons attack in Syria to rebels and not the Syrian army. In a 100-page report sent in July to the United Nations but announced last night, Russia claims that an inspection conducted by its own team after a March attack in Aleppo shows that composition of the sarin used in the earlier attack was not military-grade, and neither were the delivery systems:

Russia says it has compiled a 100-page report detailing what it says is evidence that Syrian rebels, not forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.

In a statement posted on the Russian Foreign Ministry’s website late Wednesday. Russia said the report had been delivered to the United Nations in July and includes detailed scientific analysis of samples that Russian technicians collected at the site of the alleged attack, Khan al Asal.

Russia said its investigation of the March 19 incident was conducted under strict protocols established by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that governs adherence to treaties prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. It said samples that Russian technicians had collected had been sent to OPCW-certified laboratories in Europe. …

Richard Guthrie, formerly project leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, who said he had not seen the original report, said the Russian statement on the makeup of the sarin found outside Aleppo, which the Russians said indicated it was not military grade, might reflect only that “there are a lot of different ways to make sarin.”

He added: “The messy mix described by the Russians might also be the result of an old sarin stock being used. Sarin degrades (the molecules break up) over time and this would explain a dirty mix.”

But he also agreed with the Russian conclusion that the rockets that delivered the sarin in the March 19 incident were not likely to have come from Syrian military stocks because of the use of RDX, an explosive that is also known as hexogen and T4.

This throws a wrench into the works, at least for the moment. While most assume that the August 21st attack was the first chemical-weapons attack since Barack Obama drew his “red line” a year ago, there have been several such incidents — just on a smaller scale than seen last month. The reason UN inspectors happened to be on the ground during the August 21st attack was because they were conducting a follow-up investigation of the March incident after receiving the Russian report.

Even if rebels conducted the March attack, it doesn’t mean that Assad’s army is innocent of the August 21st attack. It does, however, pose two big political problems for Obama internationally and with Congress. Assuming that a UN inspection team uncovers enough evidence about the nature of the chemicals and delivery systems used in August to make it clear that the Assad regime bears the responsibility for the attack, it still leaves the US intervening on behalf of belligerents who may also have used chemical weapons on the battlefield, which undermines the moral argument for military action even further. And it’s likely that this report will prompt skeptics in Congress to demand a delay until the UN issues reports about both incidents to determine exactly who’s using what in Syria and whether we have any interest in intervening at all.

Of course, the Russian report could just be a big smokescreen of propaganda intended to derail Obama and the US from exerting its influence. The UN inspection reports should straighten that out, assuming we wait long enough to get them, and that could take quite a while. But if they can’t give US lawmakers definitive answers on the use of weapons and their sources, will Congress want to open up a new war based on nothing but assumptions?

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=224108

Here It Is..... Russian Claims

I saw this a few days ago -- but now we have a size and composition of the report.

The report itself was not released. But the statement drew a pointed comparison between what it said was the scientific detail of the report and the far shorter intelligence summaries that the United States, Britain and France have released to justify their assertion that the Syrian government launched chemical weapons against Damascus suburbs on Aug. 21. The longest of those summaries, by the French, ran nine pages. Each relies primarily on circumstantial evidence to make its case, and they disagree with one another on some details, including the number of people who died in the attack.

Specifically, the Russians claim to have evidence that:

The shell fragments in the chemical attack are inconsistent with anything known to be in Syrian government inventory -- but are consistent with that of improvised shells constructed by the rebels.
The gas itself contains contaminents not consistent with industrial-scale production of Sarin, but is consistent with old, 1950s-era production when the processes to make the gas were in development. Syria didn't exist as a government producing such material in the 1950s.
The bursting charges (the part that goes "boom") apparently were RDX. RDX is a compound not typically used by government military entities because it is expensive and there are better compounds available to them. But RDX is common in terrorist munitions.

There are various reports about whether this particular set of data came from the attack in August, or an earlier one in March. McClatchy believes this is from March. I'm not so sure. But it doesn't really matter, does it, if it establishes that the rebels use chemical weapons, irrespective of when they used them.

After all, the premise behind us bombing Assad is that he used them against the rebels. If the Rebels used them either instead of Assad or both sides used them then exactly what justification do we have for getting involved in this at all?

Never mind that if we attack WE WILL STILL BE ACTING AS AL-QAIDA'S AIR FORCE.
This is, at this point, a claim and I've not seen the actual report. It may be fabricated. But if we hit Syria's government and it's not then we're conducting fire missions on behalf of an entity that used chemical weapons.

Still sleeping well and watching "Dancing With The Stars" America?

Syria chemical weapons and War watch highlights......

Thursday, September 5

21:00 GMT: US Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power said Thursday there is “no viable path forward” in the UN Security council on Syria, accusing Russian leaders of holding the council hostage to protect President Bashar al-Assad’s government.

“I was present in the meeting where the UK laid down the resolution, and everything in that meeting, in word and body language, suggests that that resolution has no prospect of being adopted, by Russia in particular,” Power said. “In the wake of the flagrant shattering of the international norm against chemical weapons use, Russia continues to hold the council hostage and shirk its responsibilities, including as a party to the chemical weapons convention.”

20:45 GMT: President Obama has forgone a trip to California, instead remaining in Washington, “to work on the Syrian resolution before Congress,” the White House has announced. Obama was scheduled to speak at the AFL-CIO’s quadrennial convention in Los Angeles and attend a party fundraiser which has been postponed.

The president departed Washington Tuesday night for a trip to Sweden before heading to the G20 summit in Russia. Obama will return to the US on Friday. Both chambers of Congress are scheduled to debate US military action in Syria on Monday.

20:24 GMT: US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he is “guardedly optimistic” that the Senate will vote to authorize limited missile strikes against Syria, a Democratic aide said on Thursday, as cited by Reuters. The aide said the Senate will likely vote on President Obama’s use-of-force resolution on Wednesday, in an attempt to nullify an expected entanglement with Republicans.

Reid did not attend the meeting with Obama earlier this week in which Democrat and Republican leaders were briefed on the details of the Syrian conflict. Reid told reporters that he has been in daily contact with the president and “has all the information he needs.”

17:07 GMT: The UK has fresh evidence of use of chemical weapons in the Syrian capital, Damascus, British prime minister, David Cameron, told the BBC.

He said evidence of the Bashar Assad regime's use of chemical weapons was “growing all the time” and UK scientists were investigating the alleged attacks on 21 August.

"We have just been looking at some samples taken from Damascus in the Porton Down laboratory in Britain which further shows the use of chemical weapons in that Damascus suburb," Cameron said.

The PM also denied claims he has “no hand to play” over Syria after losing a vote on UK military action in Syria, saying that Britain would lead calls for more action on aid for refugees and push for fresh peace talks.

16:18 GMT: Moscow is puzzled by the Pentagon’s claims that Russia has been shipping chemical weapons or the means to develop them to the Syrian government of Bashar Assad, the head of the Kremlin’s administration, Sergey Ivanov, said.

“I’ve heard this statement, spoken in diplomatic language, I was very surprised and even shocked by it,”Ivanov is cited as saying by the ITAR-TASS news agency.

The official added that no matter how Congress votes on the use of force against Syria, the decision by the US lawmaker still won’t be “legitimate”.

Ivanov also said that Russia has boosted its naval presence in the Mediterranean Sea in order to evacuate Russian citizens from Syria in case of an attack.

15:22 GMT: Leaders of the BRICS countries expressed their concerns on Thursday that military action against Syria could damage the world economy, a spokesman for the Russian president said.

“It was noted within the BRICS dialogue that among factors that could negatively affect the global economic situation are the consequences of the eventual foreign intervention into Syrian affairs. Such consequences can have an extremely negative effect on global economy,” the spokesman said.

The BRICS association includes the emerging economies of Russia, China, India, Brazil, and South Africa.

15:15 GMT: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov is to hold talks with his Syrian counterpart Walid al-Moualem on September 9 in Moscow, according to Russian Foreign Ministry.

“In accordance with an agreement reached, Moscow will host talks between Russia’s Foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, and Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Syrian Arab Republic, Walid al-Moualem,” the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said in a statement on its website.

The talks will focus on the comprehensive review of all aspects of the current conflict in Syria, according to the statement.

“In Moscow, we remain convinced of the need for a speedy end to the violence and suffering of the civilian population in Syria and the path of a political settlement without external military intervention avoiding the UN Security Council,” the ministry's statement said.

14:40 GMT: Russia is not blocking the work of the UN Security Council, but “calls for all its partners for objective assessment of the situation” concerning Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov said at the G20 briefing.

“Russia is attempting to call on its partners, including partners in Washington, for an objective assessment of the situation, without taking decisions before the official verdict of the UN experts working in Syria,” Peskov said.

Only after the UN experts announce their legitimate conclusion on if the chemical weapons were indeed used in Syria, “then it is necessary to sort out who was behind their use,” Peskov stressed.

“We cannot accept the evidence that, in our view, does not represent any evidence, that is far from being convincing,” Putin’s spokesman said.

13:33 GMT: Heavy clashes between Syrian government forces and militants of the Al-Qaida affiliated group, Jabhat al-Nusra (Al-Nusra Front), have been going on in the mountains surrounding the UNESCO-listed Christian village in western Syria after the insurgents attacked and held it overnight, AP reports, citing the UK-based Observatory for Human Rights.

Militants reportedly left the village of Maaloula early on Thursday, with locals saying they saw them patrolling the streets on foot and in vehicles at night, as well as surrounding the village church and mosque. According to AP speaking with witnesses over the phone, the villagers fear the rebels will return.

12:34 GMT: Iran will support Syria “to the end” in the face of a possible US-led military strike, Iran’s elite Quds Force unit commander Qassem Soleimani has said.

“The aim of the United States is not to protect human rights ... but to destroy the front of resistance [against Israel],” Soleimani was quoted as saying by AFP citing local media.

“We will support Syria to the end,” he added in a speech to the Iranian Assembly of Experts, without elaborating.

However, Iran’s Defense Minister, Hossein Dehqan, ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria.

“The Syrians do not need us to provide them with weapons because they have a defensive anti-aircraft system themselves,” Dehqan was quoted as saying.

12:20 GMT: The UN inspectors will not reveal the preliminary results of the probe into alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on August 21 near Damascus until the probe is completed, Martin Nesirky, a spokesman for UN Secretary General, has said.

“There will be no disclosure of the preliminary findings. There will only be final results after all the samples are analyzed,” Ban Ki-moon’s spokesman was quoted as saying by Interfax.

European Council President Herman van Rompuy said earlier on Thursday he expected the UN Secretary General to share the tentative findings of the UN chemical weapons inspectors on the sidelines of the G20 summit.

11:48 GMT: The international community should focus on a political solution for the Syrian crisis, said the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.

“The European Union is certain that the efforts should be aimed at a political settlement,” Barroso told reporters at the G20 briefing.

11:39 GMT: Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, slammed the US for using the alleged chemical weapons use as a “pretext” for intervention in Syria.

“In the case of Syria, the chemical attack is a pretext... The Americans try to play with words and pretend that they’ve become involved in this case for humanitarian aims,” Khamenei said, at a meeting of the Iranian Assembly of Experts.

Khamenei then warned the US would “suffer loss” in Syria, should they launch a military strike.

“I believe the Americans are making mistakes in Syria and they have felt the impact and will certainly suffer loss,” he said.

11:09 GMT: Seventy percent of Germans are against military intervention in Syria. However, 65 percent consider it a possibility, according to a survey ordered by the ZDF TV channel.

10:15 GMT: UN special envoy to Syria, Lakhdar Brahimi, will push for an international conference to find a political solution to the conflict in Syria during the G20 summit.

"While the world is focused on concerns about the possible use of chemical weapons in Syria we must push even harder for the International Conference on Syria to take place in Geneva," said Brahimi in a statement.

05:12 GMT: Russia has sent an official request to meet the US lawmakers with the aim of lobbying them on Syria. It’s after earlier speculations that Russia will send a delegation to Washington, DC.

02:52 GMT: While calling for reconciliation and denying his government used chemical weapons, Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Mekdad told the Wall Street Journal if the US attacks Syria, Damascus would strike back not only at Israel, but also neighbors Jordan and Turkey if they participate in hostilities.

"Once the war starts nobody can control what will happen," he said. "We believe that any attack against Syria will definitely result in chaos in the entire region if not beyond."

He also said US strikes would strengthen rebel groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda rather than the moderate opposition forces the US has supported.

02:41 GMT: The Vatican will host a day of fasting and a four-hour prayer vigil Saturday in St. Peter’s Square in opposition to US military strikes in Syria, the AP reported. The Vatican has invited bishops’ conferences the world over to host local version of the vigil.

In recent speeches, tweets and remarks, Pope Francis has called for a negotiated settlement to the Syrian conflict while condemning use of chemical weapons. “War never again! Never again war!” he tweeted earlier this week.

Other voices......

You Cost America a Great Deal This Past Week, Mr. President

Charlie Daniels
Infowars.com
Sept. 4, 2013

In my soon to be 77 years as a citizen of the United States of America, having lived through Japan’s sneak attack on Pearl Harbor, the dark days of WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Watergate, 9/11 and all the other serious and profound events our beloved nation has been involved in over the last three quarters of a century, I have to say with all sincerity that I have never seen a president as confused, befuddled, impotent, insincere and as out of his depth as Barack Obama has become in dealing with the Syrian issue.

When you’re the leader of the free world, you don’t make statements you can’t back up and you don’t draw lines in the sand, watch your enemies cross them with impunity and go off and play a round of golf.

Obama painted himself and the nation into a corner with his “red line” statement and I truly believe he thought he would have unilateral international and domestic support only to find himself standing alone in the spotlight with egg on his face and a ticking political time bomb in his hand.

I don’t believe he ever had any intention of going through Congress and only decided to do so when he was left without the support of traditional allies and the disdain of a war weary American public who have begun to feel that America cannot be the international police force who has to bear the brunt of every catastrophe.

I think Obama is taking the vote for military authorization to Congress to bail himself out, to buy some time, somebody to share the blame if all goes wrong. Obama had already positioned war ships. All that was left to do was give the order to fire the missiles and at the 11th hour, after being rejected by the British parliament and put off by the French, he started having second thoughts and reached for the life preserver.

I, for one, am glad that Obama – for whatever reason – political expediency notwithstanding, did not facilitate the missile attack as it would have been largely symbolic and cosmetic and as he had given Assad enough warning to move the weapons out of harms way would have done little if anything to rid the world of chemical weapons.

It’s not that I think nothing should be done about weapons of mass destruction no matter where they’re used in the world, but I believe it’s not just the responsibility of the United States to enforce international law. If the civilized nations of the world shirk this duty, why should they think America should take on the job by itself?

America has done enough “sending signals”, symbolic gestures, getting involved in situations that don’t threaten our national interests or that of our allies.

America’s leaders should guard their tongues well and not issue spur of the moment reactions and empty threats. Our bite should be a lot worse than our bark and a presidential warning should be a dire and solemn caution, issued only once and followed up with swift and decisive action, not some half-baked puff of bravado that nobody really takes seriously.

What little bit of credibility America had in the Middle East just went out the window Friday afternoon, as a president who let his ego overload his common sense backed down from a tin horned dictator of a third world country, or at least that’s how it’s viewed in that part of the world.

The mettle of a president and the people he surrounds himself with is not proven until push comes to shove. This nation has entered a new phase in the war on terror and our relativity in the rest of the world and the road is going to be long, rocky and dangerous.

It remains to be seen how this embarrassing situation will play out. Will the president seek the council of the more experienced advice available to him in Congress? Or, will he remain defiant and continue to go it alone.

You’ve cost America a great deal this past week, Mr. President.

How much more can we take?

What do you think?

Pray for our troops and the peace of Jerusalem.

God Bless America

Charlie Daniels

Syrian and Middle Eastern Christians Condemn US Strike Plans

Posted on 09/05/2013 by Juan Cole

Syria and Lebanon are multicultural societies, but the American discourse about Syria tends to focus on the Muslim majority and to ignore the substantial Christian minorities. It is interesting that these Eastern Christians are solidly against an American missile strike on Syria. Many US congressional representatives discussing the possibility of military action against that country invoked God and prayer in their remarks, lending the discussion a Christian ambiance. But they didn’t refer to any statements on the crisis by actual Syrian or Lebanese Christians (the two are closely linked).

On Tuesday, the Greek Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, Gregorius III Lahham,said, “The military strike that is expected against Syria will increase the distress of the Christians and lead to the destruction of Syria, of both its Christians and its Muslims–no one will be spared.”

Gregorius added that 450,000 Syrian Christians had been displaced from their homes since 2011, either remaining inside Syria or fleeing abroad.

Christians may make up as many as 14% of the Syrian population of 22 million. That is, there may be as many as 3 million of them (about the population of Iowa or Kansas). The biggest denomination is Eastern Orthodoxy or Greek Orthodoxy, i.e. the same branch of Christianity as in Greece and Russia. The second biggest is the Greek Catholics, who had been Eastern Orthodox but who came into communion with Rome in the 1700s and recognized the Pope. The Christians of Syria for the most part are either neutral toward the Baath regime of Bashar al-Assad or support the government in preference to the radical Sunni fundamentalists of Jabhat al-Nusra (The Succor Front). The Christians of Lebanon support the Christians of Syria and also tend to favor the Damascus government versus the al-Qaeda affiliates.

The Bishopric of Damascus praised the call of Pope Francis I to make Saturday a day of mourning and prayer on behalf of Syria. They said that the planned military strike was planned out by the enemies of the Syrian people.

(The US Catholic Bishops have decided against the war; but the Catholic clerics are only allowed to be seen on television in the US on such matters when they support the hawks; i.e., almost never).

The
Maronite Catholic patriarch of Lebanon, Bishara Butrus al-Ra’i, and the bishops warned against a US strike on Syria on Wednesday.

“The bishops denounce the use of chemical weapons in Syria, but they call for being aware of the risks of a potential military strike…

“We call for resolving the Syrian crisis through dialogue and peaceful diplomatic means; a political solution is the best option for Syria…”

About a quarter of Lebanese are Christian, and about 40% of the electorate is. The majority of Lebanese Christians belong to the Maronite Church, rooted in the teachings of a medieval saint. In the 1500s, the church came into decisive communion with Rome, though contacts went back to the 1100s. (Maronites claim always to have been Catholics, but I’m a historian, not a theologian). As with other Uniate churches, Maronites were permitted by Rome to retain their own liturgy (in Syriac, close to the language Jesus spoke) rather than being made to switch to Latin. The current Maronite Patriarch, al-Ra’i, was also appointed a cardinal by the Pope.

The prospect of the American attack comes at a time when Eastern Christians feel fragile and under the gun. In Egypt, the overthrow of the Muslim Brotherhood government on July 3 was followed by widespread attacks on Coptic Christian churches by Muslim fundamentalists who blamed Copts for the coup/ revolution. (Actually the latter was made for the most part by secular Egyptian youth of Muslim heritage.)

Christians in the Levant are afraid that the Lebanese Shiite organization, the Hizbullah, will retaliate against Israel after an American strike on Damascus. Such an action could lead to a wider war.

Obama’s Syria Strike Part of ‘Broader Strategy’ (Germanos)

Posted on 09/05/2013 by Juan Cole

Andrea Germanos writes at Commondreams

As the Obama administration continues its "flood the zone" campaign to win congressional support for military force against Syria, a statement by the president Tuesday indicates its plan is to go beyond punitive strikes against Assad and to pursue a "broader strategy."

President Barack Obama meets with his National Security Staff to discuss the situation in Syria, in the Situation Room of the White House, Aug. 30, 2013. (Photo: White House/Pete Souza) Although, as McClatchy reports, the administration's case to use force against Syria "is riddled with inconsistencies and hinges mainly on circumstantial evidence," Obama signaled he was confident his request for authorization to use force would win votes from Congress next week.

Speaking to congressional leaders at the White House on Tuesday, President Obama outlined the broader strategy, saying:

As I've said last week, as Secretary Kerry made clear in his presentation last week, we have high confidence that Syria used, in an indiscriminate fashion, chemical weapons that killed thousands of people, including over 400 children, and in direct violation of the international norm against using chemical weapons. That poses a serious national security threat to the United States and to the region, and as a consequence, Assad and Syria needs to be held accountable. [...]

This is a limited, proportional step that will send a clear message not only to the Assad regime, but also to other countries that may be interested in testing some of these international norms, that there are consequences. It gives us the ability to degrade Assad’s capabilities when it comes to chemical weapons. It also fits into a broader strategy that we have to make sure that we can bring about over time the kind of strengthening of the opposition and the diplomatic and economic and political pressure required so that ultimately we have a transition that can bring peace and stability not only to Syria but to the region.

But I want to emphasize once again: What we are envisioning is something limited. It is something proportional. It will degrade Assad’s capabilities. At the same time, we have a broader strategy that will allow us to upgrade the capabilities of the opposition, allow Syria ultimately to free itself from the kinds of terrible civil wars and death and activity that we’ve been seeing on the ground.

Republican Senators John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), who have pushed for an aggressive attack on Syria, left a Labor Day meeting with Obama "encouraged the administration appeared to be developing a plan for Syria that would degrade the military capabilities of Syrian President Bashar Assad's regime while improving the capabilities of rebel forces," The Hillreports.

And on Tuesday, "the House leadership on both sides has publicly positioned itself behind the president," the Guardian notes in its Syria live blog. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi was among those offering support for this "broader strategy," though she also said that congressional support wasn't really necessary:

House minority leader Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, and speaker John Boehner, a Republican, have both just delivered statements outside the White House calling for support for military strikes in Syria.

House majority leader Eric Cantor subsequently released a statement of support.

Speaking in separate appearances after a meeting with the president, Pelosi and Boehner said they would urge their caucuses to support Obama.

"The use of these weapons have to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability and the capacity to stop Assad," Boehner said.

Pelosi said the case for taking action is strong.

"I feel pretty confident… that we have a good conversation to have with our members," she said.

Pelosi said did not think congressional authorization "is necessary" for the president to use force in Syria, citing the 1999 Nato bombing of Serbian forces in Kosovo.

However, whether or not Obama gets this congressional authorization, if he goes forward without approval from the United Nations, it would be a war crime, Noam Chomsky told the Huffington Post.

Further, the implications of the authorization for the use of military force(AUMF) could be far-reaching, as Jim White writes at emptywheel:

It is not lost on Iran that the AUMF for action in Syria is written broadly enough that US military action could spill over into Iran. A Fars News article dated yesterday cites the Jack Goldsmith analysis of the draft AUMF that foresees US action in Iran:

"Goldsmith asked whether the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force against Iran or Lebanon’s Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon? Again, yes, if the President accuses Iran or Hezbollah of having a (mere) 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 US or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons. Again, it is very easy to imagine."

The article continues, noting (as Marcy [Wheeler] has many times) how the 9/11 AUMF has been interpreted broadly:

"It brings to mind the AUMF passed in the aftermath of September 11. While that resolution directly concerned Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, it was later broadened to justify drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia–even on targets that were clearly not part of Al-Qaeda."

Amidst the sound of the drums for war, the U.N. stated on Tuesday that ongoing violence has created two million Syrian refugees and over four million internally displaced people, and warned there was no end in sight to the “humanitarian calamity.”

What are the Syrian Rebels chemical weapon capabilities again ? And Al Qaeda not a factor - Putin says " Well, let me retort " !

Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons

“We’ll kill their women and children like Osama Bin Laden said”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
September 5, 2013

A video has emerged of an opposition rebel militant in Syria apparently confessing to using chemical weapons in order to follow Osama Bin Laden’s mantra of killing women and children.

The individual in the clip, Nadeem Baloosh, is a member of an insurgent group called Riyadh Al Abdeen, which is active in the Latakia area of Syria.

Baloosh speaks of “chemicals which produce lethal and deadly gases that I possess,” before going on to state, “We decided to harm them through their women and kids.”

Baloosh ponders if it is acceptable to harm women and children before quoting the Koran, “Fight them as they fight you. ” He goes on to quote Osama Bin Laden (whom other rebel groups have openly praised).

“We’ll kill their women and children like Sheikh Osama Bin Laden said – “until they cease killing our women and kids,” he states.

Baloosh goes on to talk about the Syrian Army approaching the area where his rebel group was located, before stating, “So we had the idea that this weapon was very powerful and effective to repel them, we announced if they approached one meter, everything is permitted.”

“We will strike them in their homes, we will turn their day into night and their night into day,” adds Baloosh.

The footage adds to the increasing weight of evidence that suggests US-backed rebels possess and have used chemical weapons on more than one occasion, although such reports have been habitually downplayed by the mainstream media.

Earlier today Russia announced that it had compiled a 100 page report proving opposition rebels “were behind a deadly sarin gas attack in an Aleppo suburb earlier this year.”

Carla Del Ponte, the leading member of the UN inquiry into the attack, which happened in March, told Swiss TV that there existed “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof” that rebels were responsible for the atrocity.

As we highlighted last week, Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta admitted to a reporter that they were responsible for last month’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

Despite the fact that the report was written by credible Associated Press and BBC correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has received virtually zero mainstream attention.

In addition, leaked phone conversations that emerged earlier this year between two members of the Free Syrian Army contain details of a plan to carry out a chemical weapons attack capable of impacting an area the size of one kilometer. Footage was also leaked showing opposition militants testing what appeared to be nerve agents on laboratory rabbits.

There are also multiple other videos which apparently show US-backed rebels preparing and using chemical weapons.

G20 Summit: Obama Faces Heavy Criticism From World Leaders

Putin accuses Kerry of lying; Mexico and Brazilian presidents accuse Obama of spying

Julie Wilson
Infowars.com
September 5, 2013

Just hours prior to President Obama’s arrival at the G20 Summit, Russian President Putin criticized US officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry in particular.

After tuning in to the Congressional debates, Putin heard Kerry tell a congressman al-Qaeda forces no longer make up the majority of the opposition in Syria. Putin argues the main combat unit in Syria is al-Nusra, a main unit of al-Qaeda, and the US knows it.

“It’s not pleasant for me to see this. While we communicate with them and assume they are decent people, he [Kerry] lies openly. And he knows he lies,” said Putin.

“They’re fighting not just about Syria, but the Edward Snowden controversy, and all of this is playing out as the President is on the world’s stage,” said Fox News correspondent Ed Henry.

Of course the White House response is that Putin is just “flat out wrong.” But as Infowars has continually reported, evidence points towards the Syrian rebels as the culprits for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on Aug. 21.

Just last week the rebels …”admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.”

Tensions toward the US is growing after leaked documents from former NSA employee Edward Snowden revealed the US has been spying not just domestically, but also on world leaders.

The Brazilian and Mexican governments have both recently come out publicly expressing their distaste over the “unacceptable invasion” of privacy by the US spy program.

This week Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called for “international regulations to protect citizens and governments alike from cyber espionage,” reports the Washington Post. She is even considering canceling her appearance at a US state dinner scheduled for October in which she was to be “honored.”

Brazilian officials have requested a “prompt written explanation over the espionage allegations.”

Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto also expressed outrage after discovering his emails and phone calls were being monitored by NSA prior to his election last July.

The Guardian’s Glen Greenwald told AP in an email that a “…DNI presenter, a program used by NSA to open and read emails and online chats,” was used to intercept the electronic communication of both Rousseff and Pena Nieto.

In response, Obama offered his usual nonchalant affirmations when he stated:

“I can give assurances to the publics in Europe and around the world, that we’re not going around snooping at people’s emails or listening to their phone calls. What we try to do is target very specific areas of concern.”

Former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has also been vocal about Obama’s wish-washy foreign affair policies when he told CNN:

“This president has tried to find a way to blame everybody or anybody for everything. Leadership requires that you stand up, take a position, provide clarity and take responsibility. I can’t image him saying he didn’t draw the red line. He did draw the red line.”

Catharsis Ours

Thursday, September 5, 2013

A House Divided: Obama Lacks Votes For Syrian Attack

Pelosi: I don’t know if Obama can get a majority of House Democrats to support a Syria attack

POSTED AT 12:41 PM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Thursday, September 5, 2013

The Russian Bear Hug for the Flexible American Lyin’

Wednesday, September 4, 2013

Obama’s Syrian Objective: “It doesn’t matter which way you go, so long as I get somewhere.”

Smart power: Pentagon “clairifies” Hagel claim that Russia supplied chemical weapons to Syria

POSTED AT 1:46 PM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Reuters: Kerry’s sunny estimate of Syrian opposition not backed up by intelligence

POSTED AT 9:21 AM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Kerry: Why yes, some Arab countries have offered to foot the entire bill if we “go do the whole thing” in Syria

POSTED AT 8:01 PM ON SEPTEMBER 4, 2013 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

China sides with Russia in opposing military strikes on Syria, warns of oil price surge

Russia releases 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for March chemical attack

POSTED AT 10:41 AM ON SEPTEMBER 5, 2013 BY ED MORRISSEY

Thursday, September 5

You Cost America a Great Deal This Past Week, Mr. President

Syrian and Middle Eastern Christians Condemn US Strike Plans

Obama’s Syria Strike Part of ‘Broader Strategy’ (Germanos)

Video: Syrian Rebel Admits Using Chemical Weapons

G20 Summit: Obama Faces Heavy Criticism From World Leaders

No comments:

Post a Comment