Monthly Archives: September 2013

Obama backpedals on Syria. What happens next?


There has so far been deep disagreement over the significance of Russia’s offer and Obama’s backdown on conducting “unbelievably small limited operations with no boots on the ground” in Libya Syria. Was this a victory for Kerry / Obama, or a brilliant chess move from Putin / Lavrov?

Assad has agreed to remove his chemical weapon arsenal and war has been avoided or at least delayed, so all sides may claim victory.

The more important question may be whether this opens the door for the White House to “act” should anything go wrong. Before the deal was struck, Obama had very little chance of getting congressional approval, but now the spin seems to be that the US must act if Assad isn’t sincere.

The key doublespeak term for the moment is “act.” The “limited operations” and “no boots” lines have failed and given way to the more ambiguous “action” and “acting.”

President Barack Obama has welcomed an agreement on the Syrian chemical weapons reached during the US-Russian talks in Geneva, but warned that America will remain prepared to act if diplomatic efforts fail.

“…if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act,” Obama stated.

Obama’s first step, or “act,” has been to waive “provisions of a federal law which ban the supply of weapons and money to terrorists.”

RT: Obama ‘should be grateful’ for face-saving chance to backpedal on Syria

Sepahpour-Ulrich said that Russia’s proposal allows Obama and America “to save face,” given the fact that a military strike on Syria would be “contrary to the people’s will” and receive little international support.

Washington Examiner: Obama administration already taking victory lap over Russia lifeline

Naturally, Obama’s cheerleading squad jumped at the chance to declare Obama the winner in all this.

A Plea for Caution From Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks directly to the American people in an attempt to circumvent the Washington spin machine.

If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.

Top Lawmakers Pile On Putin Op-Ed: ‘Almost Wanted to Vomit’, ‘An Insult’

Congressional leaders are upset over the lessons in statesmanship and leadership (and even peace-making) that Putin has given the Obama administration as they remind us that “military operations,” otherwise known as “holding the Assad regime accountable,” is right around the corner should anything go wrong.

“Leaders in Damascus and Moscow should understand that Congress will be watching these negotiations very closely,” the Nevada Democrat (Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid) said Wednesday. “If there is any indication these are not serious, that it’s a ploy to delay, to obstruct, to divert, then I think we have to again give the president the authority to hold the Assad regime accountable.”

Congress presumably understands that the American people will be watching Congress very closely and if there is any indication that they are trying to start another pointless war, the people will hold the Obama regime and Congress accountable.

World Turns to Russia for Leadership Instead of Corrupt U.S.

Alex Jones interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Marvin Kalb: Syria and Russia: What’s Putin Up to?

…the Islamic fanaticism that appears to be growing in the Syrian opposition may one day spread to such restless parts of southern Russia as Chechnya and Dagestan…

Pepe Escobar: Russian chess move stalls US actions as Al-Qaeda Air Force

True diplomats are supposed to prevent wars – not pose as warmongers. American exceptionalism is of course exempted. So just as Secretary of State John Kerry had the pedal on the metal selling yet another war in a London presser, his beat up Chevy was overtaken by a diplomatic Maserati: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov.


Weekly Standard: Putin Didn’t Save Obama, He Beat Him

Some neocon sour grapes 😦

More sour grapes. This time in the form of bad Russia jokes from the Huffington Post:

National Journal: Obama’s Foreign Policy by Faux Pas

If we see “a whole bunch of weapons moving around or being utilized,” that would be a “red line” that would “change my calculus,” Obama famously said.

And this guy is supposed to be more eloquent and articulate than Bush? Marginally perhaps. I guess it depends on your eloquence calculus.

A would-be war bookended by verbal gaffes.

Fine, let’s keep it “would-be.”

Syrian Rebels Furious At U.S.-Russian Deal

General Salim Idris (head of the opposition Syrian Supreme Military Council) notes that this allows Assad “to escape being held accountable,” and, while unverified for now, Idris added, “we have told our friends that the regime has begun moving a part of its chemical weapons arsenal to Lebanon and Iraq. We told them do not be fooled.” But another military council official, Qassim Saadeddine, was a little more aggressive: “Let the Kerry-Lavrov plan go to hell. We reject it and we will not protect the inspectors or let them enter Syria.”

Sikorski reaffirms role in Syrian weapons deal

“If my suggestions have helped someone change their mind, or prompt reflection, then we have cause for some small satisfaction,” he (Sikorski) told journalists on Wednesday,Sikorski-reaffirms-role-in-Syrian-weapons-deal

Syria Tells You Everything You Need to Know About Barack Obama

According to this article, Obama is unflappable. Here is the evidence:

From all public appearances, this was the “no drama Obama” his aides brag about. Certainly, he was affected by public criticism and even swayed by polling, but the president kept searching for a way out of a complicated situation. He may have stumbled into peace but that’s better than rushing into war.

Keiser Report: Selling Syria

US, Russia agree on dismantling Syria chem weapons

Hollande is working hard to compete with the British and American warmongers for the position of World Gendarme:

“We can now seriously think of a diplomatic solution, but the military option must remain. Otherwise there is nothing to stop Syria,” Hollande said as cited by Reuters.

…the proposal “must include the threat of sanctions.”

Thank you for calling! Can you hold, please?

Syria Accepts Russia’s Chemical Weapons Plan, Setting Up a Long Day for Obama

Putin: Syria chem arms handover will work only if US calls off strike

Obama: Strike ‘Absolutely’ on Hold if Syria Abandons Chemical Weapons

Reuters: Obama to explore diplomatic route on Syria chemical weapons

Obama is prepared to act should anything go wrong, though he seems to have forgotten that he has yet to convince Congress, the American people, or even the UN that we should act at all.

“The international community expects the Assad regime to live up to its public commitments,” President Obama said in a statement Saturday. But he also insisted that the United States “remains prepared to act” should diplomatic efforts fail.

‘To bomb or not to bomb?’ Obama’s Hamlet omnishambles

Americans are almost unanimously “mixed”

Yahoo: Americans still mixed, hesitant after Obama’s Syria plea

It’s not clear how Americans are “mixed” and “hesitant” when as low as 9% of the American people support military action in Syria. A glance at the comments at the bottom of the article indicate a “no” vote.–hesitant-after-obama-s-plea-on-syria-031937340.html

Americans Reject World Police Role, Fear Being Drawn Into War–politics.html

Sen. Bernie Sanders – The American People Have Spoken: No More War Abroad, More Jobs at Home

At a time of great political division in our country President Obama has found a remarkable way to unite Americans of all political persuasions — conservatives, progressives and moderates. With a loud and clear voice, the overwhelming majority of the American people, across the political spectrum, are saying NO to another war in the Middle East — Syria’s bloody and complicated civil war.

The alternative media have played a critical role in blocking the Syria invasion limited operations, as the mainstream media lose their audiences and credibility:

In a truly powerful augmentation of history, spreading the word over staged events like the Syrian chemical attacks has ultimately forced the Obama administration and its affiliates to push back their plans to launch military action.

There’s no longer the need to play into the psychological minefield of labeling certain sources ‘alternative news’ when we can go back to leading Gallup polls and show that virtually no one trusts the mainstream media.

The Big Story: Lingering Doubts

Former Bush and Clinton Administration Insider – Nobody is Asking the Basic Question

“The rest of the world does not believe what we’re saying for good reason. We made it up last time”.

Mann Leverett said, “It is strikingly similar to the lead up to the war in Iraq . I was in the Bush administration in the Bush White House dealing also with Congressional Democrats and with members of the media, with the New York Times, with NBC. The herd mentality that took over to buy into the Bush administration’s narrative that Saddam Hussein had to have chemical weapons and weapons of mass destruction and was determined to use them against us was something unquestioned. I remember going with a key member of the Bush national security team to see President Clinton and he putting his arm around her, telling her not only was the intel right, but she was doing the right thing morally. It was not only a mistake, it was based on manufactured evidence.”

Yet, the Pacific Standard claims that people who believe in evil will probably support a strike:

Should We Bomb Syria? The Answer Is Easy if You Believe in Evil

Investment Watch: U.S. Admits No Imminent Threat from Syria, No Clear Evidence Assad Ordered Chemical Weapons Attack

RT: Obama orders US military to ‘maintain posture’ on Syria

CNN Propagandist Amanpour Demands “Moral” Intervention in Syria

“I can barely contain myself at this point,” said the journalist. “How many more times do we have to say that weapons of mass destruction were used and as bad as it is to decapitate somebody it is in no means equal?”

Although the Obama administration and the establishment insist the al-Assad government used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria, there is scant evidence to back up Amanpour’s assertion or justify her emotional outburst.

Congressional Approval

Obama: I might lose congressional vote on Syria–politics.html

Congressman Jeff Miller Questions Secretary Kerry on Syria

McCain & Graham Seize on ‘Peace’ Initiative to Push War

From the Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass Files:

“Today’s development should make Members of Congress more willing to vote yes,” McCain and Graham said in a joint statement. “This will give the President additional leverage to press Russia and Syria to make good on their proposal to take the weapons of mass destruction out of Assad’s hands.”

The move represents a last ditch gambit to secure congressional authorization for what amounts to open ended war, a green light that otherwise looks doomed, with the latest whip count showing that less than 10% of the House supports Obama’s resolution for a strike on Syria.

Senators say Russia plan boosts prospects for Congress Syria vote;_ylt=AgFuNDU89lN66x2wwAWZjJ.jCu9_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxZTNqYjRrBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDMjBmNjM2MDctNDhlOS0zNmRmLTkxNGEtOTQ2ZDI4ZmE3MWJlBHBvcwM0BHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzczZDgxNjkwLTE5YTAtMTFlMy1iZmQ3LTI4M2ZkN2I4YzNjZg–;_ylg=X3oDMTBrbzhscWw4BGxhbmcDZW4tVVMEdGVzdANnczAx;_ylv=3

Reuters: The vote on Syria hardly matters

Obama punted on the issue, asking for congressional backing (but all the while stressing he could strike without Congress’ permission). And now, thanks to gaffe diplomacy, it’s possible that America won’t strike Syria at all, as the administration is willing to delay a vote in favor of pursuing a diplomatic solution — like Russia’s proposal that Syria hands over its chemical weapons to the international community. That Russia’s plan is likely aimed more at scuttling strikes than at actually rounding up Assad’s chemical arsenal seems beside the point.

“This is not a game,” Kerry said. “It has to be real. It has to be comprehensive. It has to be verifiable. It has to be credible. It has to be timely and implemented in a timely fashion. Finally, there ought to be consequences if it doesn’t take place.”

Kerry cautioned that a U.S. military strike could occur if Assad doesn’t agree to dismantle his chemical arsenal properly.

Sour over Syria: American senators attack Russian banks

Sheldon Adelson to President Obama: ‘I Would Be Willing to Help’ on Syria

Is this a set-up?

Is Syria Setting Itself Up for International Prosecution?

France is currently working on a resolution to put before the United Nations Security Council that demands the inspection, confiscation, and destruction of Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile. Should Syria agree to and then later violate the agreement, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said there would be “very serious consequences.”

If Syria signs on to the CWC and publicizes its storage sites, a flood of U.N. inspectors will likely enter the country to inspect the stockpile. Although not everyone in the international community is convinced, U.S. officials say they’ve already got enough evidence to say that Assad was behind the Aug. 21 attacks that killed more than 1,400 civilians. If that’s true, and future investigations start to sway the public to that claim, what will happen to Assad?

Is Assad Being Tricked Into Sacrificing Syria?

Could the precondition of Syria destroying its chemical weapons actually be used to rescue a congressional vote that had looked doomed to fail?

NATO Leader: Syria Not To Be Trusted

Is Assad Being Set Up?

Israel Awaits Cyberattack From Syrian Electronic Army

Al-Qaeda calls for strikes against US

And in case you were wondering what Chuck Norris thinks…

Chuck Norris explains Assad’s real motivations in Syria;_ylt=AkekFMk5L8j1LcCTiTTBu653Hrd_;_ylu=X3oDMTVxZXFpNTc3BGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDEwMDBwb29sd2lraXVwcmVzdARtaXQDQXJ0aWNsZSBNaXhlZCBMaXN0IE5ld3MgZm9yIFlvdSB3aXRoIE1vcmUgTGluawRwa2cDODZmYjdlMWYtMWE1Ni0zMjRhLTlhN2QtM2EzNGFiNTM3MzljBHBvcwMyBHNlYwNuZXdzX2Zvcl95b3UEdmVyAzJjZTQ4NTQxLTFhNzAtMTFlMy1iNzliLTBhZTU4YzdiYjAyOQ–;_ylg=X3oDMTBrbzhscWw4BGxhbmcDZW4tVVMEdGVzdANnczAx;_ylv=3

call reps

Syria: Whose side are the Christian politicians of the USA on?

Image“Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani” (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”)

We already know where Russia, China, the Pope, and most of the world stand on the issue of Syria, but what about Europe and America? Supposedly Christian America?

Who will we help?

a) The al-Qaeda death squad rebels?

b) The only Christian communities on Earth who speak the language of Jesus Christ? They are currently protected by the Assad regime.

Syrian rebels murdering Christians – George Galloway:

RT/ Maaloula:

Maaloula : RT crew in crossfire of Syrian army vs extremists:

Religiously, the population consists of both Christians (mainly Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholic) and Muslims.

…it is the only place where a dialect of the Western branch of the Aramaic language is still spoken. Scholars have determined that the Aramaic of Jesus belonged to this particular branch as well.’loula

Orthodox Christians? Perhaps this could be one more reason why the Russians are supporting the Assad government. Maybe they don’t want to see their Orthodox brothers and sisters slaughtered mercilessly by death squad rebels. Maybe they’ve asked themselves the question, “what would Jesus do?” Or perhaps they’re just still waiting to see any evidence at all that Assad is responsible for the chemical weapon attack!

The town of Maaloula or Malula: 

Malula — Aramaic for “entrance” — derives its name from a legend that evokes the town’s separate religious heritage. St. Takla, a beautiful young woman who had studied with St. Paul, is said to have fled from her home in what is now Turkey after her pagan parents persecuted her for her newfound Christian faith. Arriving in Malula, she found her path blocked by a mountain. She prayed, and the rocks divided in two, a stream flowing out from under her feet.

“We teach the children the Lord’s Prayer in Aramaic,” said one black-clad nun

“In Nazareth when Jesus was born they spoke more or less the same language as we do in Maaloula today,” said teacher Imad Reihan, one of the pillars of this picturesque village’s Aramaic Language Academy, where Barqil is studying.

“Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani” (“My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me”) – Christ’s lament on the cross – was famously uttered in Aramaic.

Recognised by Unesco as a “definitely endangered” language, Aramaic is spoken by 7,000 people in Maaloula, dominated by Greek Catholics (Melikites) whose churches and rites long pre-date the arrival of Islam and Arabic. Western Neo-Aramaic, to use its proper linguistic title, is spoken by about 8,000 others in two nearby villages, one now wholly Muslim.

ImageMaaloula, Syria: under siege by the death squad rebels.

Where do America’s “happy-clappy” Christian leaders stand?

Senator Lindsey Graham

As a conservative, I have always believed we can and should be better stewards of God’s creation.

“In my state, the evangelical Christian community, the church community, the faith community is listened to,” Graham said.


But the Christian community in Syria isn’t listened to as closely.

Senator Graham believes we should support the al-Qaeda rebels who would mass murder these Christians. And since almost nobody in South Carolina goes along with this, he has ramped up the fear-mongering to incredible levels by claiming that if we don’t bomb Syria, South Carolina will be nuked!

Senator John McCain

Many of you have asked about John McCain’s faith. John McCain is a strong Christian, but he believes that, in the context of the campaign, his faith is a personal issue.

He must be keeping it very personal this time. No WWJDs over here!

Maybe he’s too busy with his iPhone poker game to look into who he’s supporting.

President Barack Obama

Of course, President Obama is a Christian. Who could doubt that?

I’m a Christian by choice. My family didn’t – frankly, they weren’t folks who went to church every week. And my mother was one of the most spiritual people I knew, but she didn’t raise me in the church. So I came to my Christian faith later in life, and it was because the precepts of Jesus Christ spoke to me in terms of the kind of life that I would want to lead – being my brothers’ and sisters’ keeper, treating others as they would treat me. I think also understanding that Jesus Christ dying for my sins spoke to the humility we all have to have as human beings, that we’re sinful and we’re flawed and we make mistakes, and that we achieve salvation through the grace of God. But what we can do, as flawed as we are, is still see God in other people and do our best to help them find their own grace. That’s what I strive to do. That’s what I pray to do every day. I think my public service is part of that effort to express my Christian faith.

— President Barack Obama, September 27, 2010

Well, Barack, I sincerely hope that the “precepts of Jesus Christ” lead you to express your Christian faith by thinking twice about bombing another country in another “limited operation with no boots on the ground.”

I hope you take a little time to consider the plight of your Christian brothers and sisters in Syria, and think long and hard about the forces you choose to support.

Perhaps you could even consider the opinion of the Pope and decide not to strike Syria.

Or you could do something really radical and LISTEN TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE!

Across the US, public opinion is clearly against attacking the regime of Bashar al-Assad for its use of chemical weapons against civilians. If he opened the windows at the White House Saturday, Mr. Obama would have heard demonstrators loudly protesting any US military attack on Syria. Protesters demonstrated in New York, Boston, and other cities as well.


Did Assad gas his own people, or is this a false flag attack by the opposition?


Still no evidence of Assad’s guilt in the chemical attack has been produced by the Coalition of the Eager.

The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

From Reuters:

No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

John Kerry has thus far relied on the broken logic that a) a chemical attack occurred, b) the Assad regime has weapons like this, therefore the Assad regime is guilty.

“We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons,” Kerry said.

Russian President Vladimir Putin seems to have a much better grasp of basic logic than Sec. Kerry:

 “While the Syrian army is on the offensive, saying that it is the Syrian government that used chemical weapons is utter nonsense,” Putin told the Russian press, adding that the claim is mere “provocation” by the U.S., who should submit evidence of a chemical weapons attack to the United Nations.

Speaking to his human rights council Wednesday, Putin said, “This was very unpleasant and surprising for me. We talk to them (the Americans), and we assume they are decent people, but he is lying and he knows that he is lying. This is sad.”

Vladimir Putin, calling for caution in a world-historical op ed in the New York Times, raises the issue of opposition culpability again:

No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army, but by opposition forces, to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists. Reports that militants are preparing another attack — this time against Israel — cannot be ignored.

Predictably, the White House responded with sour grapes:

“It is also worth noting,” Carney said, “that Russia is isolated and alone in blaming the opposition for the chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.”

Witnesses on the ground accuse the Saudis of being complicit:

“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families… many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes (AP journalist Dale) Gavlak.

Ray McGovern:

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

German intelligence:

German intelligence sources suggest that last month’s alleged chemical weapons attack in Damascus was not ordered by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Bild am Sonntag has reported.–Report.html

Russian Findings

The Russian Foreign Ministry finds no evidence of Syrian army involvement, while the rebels are more likely to be responsible:

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.

See more at:

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Alexander Lukashevich said that:

its sources in Syria said that a homemade rocket carrying unidentified chemical substances had been launched from an area controlled by the opposition.

“All this cannot but suggest that once again we are dealing with a pre-planned provocation,” Lukashevich said in a statement.

The key points of the (Russian) 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.”

Cui bono? False Flag Frame-up 

Yossef Bodansky, Senior Editor, GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs writes:

There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.

UN’s Carla del Ponte, as reported by the Washington Times:

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.

Read more:
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Michael Rivero of echoes Putin’s logic:

Assad had been requesting, for months, for a special United Nations Chemical Weapons investigation team to come to Syria to check out earlier allegations that his government had used chemical weapons. The United Nations finally agreed. So why would Assad be so stupid as to carry out a chemical weapons attack on women and children the very day the UN chemical weapons inspectors arrive, just miles from where they are staying? and the answer is, Assad would not be that stupid. This chemical attack was carried out by the hired mercenaries to frame on Assad, and women and children were targeted to maximize the shock value for propaganda purposes.


Lt. Colonel Bill Connor: “If Assad did this, he’d be the stupidest military leader on the face of the Earth”

Ron Paul also points to the rebels and al-Qaeda as the most likely beneficiaries:

“We are not really positive who set off the gas,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday.

“The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” he noted.

Rush Limbaugh (of all people!) suspects a false flag attack.

“If true, this is the setup of all time,” he says.

Pat Buchanan says it “reeks of false flag operation.”

Rand Paul chimes in with the obvious question: “Cui bono?”

Julian Assange (in an interview with Ron Paul) says, “humanitarian outrage needed” in Syria, “rebels may have done it.”

Assange, regarding leaked Stratfor emails from December 2011:

“Stratfor is a U.S. intelligence contractor based in Texas and we got hold of five million of their e-mails. They do consulting work for many different government organizations and private organizations. And one of those e-mails from late 2011, December 2011, is a report back from one of their agents meeting with the U.S. Air Force, members of the French military and British military, speaking about what the hopes and game plan was under various circumstances, essentially by the West, by the U.S. and NATO, if you like. And that they really felt that what they needed was for there to be some humanitarian outrage in Syria and that once they had that, that would legitimize going in with a big airstrike,” said Assange.

Former chief of staff to Colin Powell, Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, told the Young Turks the early “indications” of the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime could point to “an Israeli false flag operation”.

Dr. Webster G. Tarpley: “The proof (of Assad’s guilt) comes from the Israelis.”

The so-called intercepts of the Syrian military cable traffic is things made up by the Mossad and the IDF.

Dr. Tarpley also points out the rush to judgment and lack of need for further UN inspections:

Secretary Kerry was on the phone with Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations trying to abolish and terminate the mission of the inspectors in Syria and Ban Ki-moon has rebuffed him…

Also from Dr. Tarpley:

Sister Agnes Mariam of Syria Analyzes Goutha Videos Touted by Obama White House, Finds Overwhelming Evidence of Fabrication and Fakery

Russia: Syrian Rebels Responsible:

Russia is convinced that the chemical incident was a provocation by rebel forces, which staged a false flag attack to drag the US into the conflict and capitalize on the damage that the Syrian army is likely to sustain in the American intervention.

Jamelle Bouie of The Daily Beast argues that false flag allegations are “conspiracy theories” because “some people are paranoid about the situation in Syria.” He admits, however, that there is no “hard confirmation” that Assad was behind the attack.

Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?

Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon, defending the official Nazi version of history, ridicules the very notion of “false flag,” suggesting that the Reichstag Fire false flag is a conspiracy theory.

The Reichstag Fire is the archetypical example. In that case –according to the conspiracist lore — Nazi agents set fire to the building, blamed it on the communists, and then seized power.

There has never been any doubt that Hitler cynically used the Reichstag fire as a pretext for assuming dictatorial power, rounding up his Social Democrat, Communist and trade union enemies, and setting Germany on the road towards militarisation. Historians, however, have long argued over whether the Nazis themselves set fire to the building, using van der Lubbe as the patsy, or whether they opportunistically made use of the act of a desperate loner.

Was it, in other words, a government-sponsored false-flag operation? Since 2001 the answer has been, almost certainly, yes.

So where’s the evidence of Assad’s guilt? Coming soon on DVD!

Yahoo reported that France had evidence that the Assad regime was behind the chemical attack:

France was set Monday to provide what it says is clear evidence that the Syrian regime was behind a devastating chemical attack

Unfortunately, the “evidence proving the regime’s involvement in the attack would be provided to top lawmakers at a meeting with Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault,” and not to the public!

“We are going to give parliamentarians everything that we have — classified until now — so that each of them can take into account the reality of this unacceptable attack,” Ayrault said.

What kind of evidence? “Evidence of different kinds,” according to a government source.

Government sources said Sunday that French intelligence had compiled information showing the Syrian regime had stockpiled more than 1,000 tonnes of chemical agents, including sarin gas, mustard gas and more powerful neurotoxic agents.

Once again, we have evidence that the Assad regime has chemical agents, but still no evidence that they were responsible for the attack! This appears to be a restatement of John Kerry’s argument that chemical weapons were used, Assad has them, therefore he is responsible.

Peter Sterry of 21st Century Wire writes:

Paris announced that it would soon declassify its top-secret documents on Assad’s alleged chemical weapons in Syria, which is said to include “several hundred tons of mustard gas” and “sarin”, a total exceeding 1,000 tons of chemical agents. For those of you who are not strong in maths, that’s 1,000 tons more chemical weapons than Saddam Hussein had in Iraq.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a DVD with evidence of a chemical attack, but still no proof of Assad’s guilt.

According to Feinstein, the DVD will show images of victims of the attacks and provide context about why it is believed chemical weapons were used. She said recipients of the DVD would be able to go through the images “at their leisure.”

The White House has evidence based on a “common-sense test.”

The White House asserted Sunday that a “common-sense test” rather than “irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence” makes the Syrian government responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response.

So, they don’t have “beyond-a-reasonable-doubt” evidence, they claim instead to have “common sense.” I would be very skeptical of that claim!

I would also subject the “demands” for a military response to a common-sense test.

“We’ve seen the video proof of the outcome of those attacks,” White House Chief of Staff Dennis McDonough told CNN, speaking of multiple clips which show victims of the suspected sarin attack in a Damascus suburb on August 21.

They’ve seen the video proof of the outcome of the attacks, though they all but admit now that there is no evidence of Assad’s responsibility.

“All of that leads to a quite strong common-sense test irrespective of the intelligence that suggests that the regime carried this out. Now do we have a picture or do we have irrefutable beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence? This is not a court of law and intelligence does not work that way,” he said.

In an interview with NBC, the chief of staff stressed that “nobody is rebutting the intelligence; nobody doubts the intelligence.”

Clearly, a lot of people do doubt it.

Human Rights Watch:

Available evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government forces were responsible for chemical weapons attacks on two Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013.

Evidence which “strongly suggests” is not good enough for another war.

From Washington’s Blog: Congress Members Who Have Seen Classified Evidence About Syria Say It Fails to Prove Anything

Congressmen & Women Justin Amash, Tom Harkin, Michael Burgess, Carol Shea-Porter, Alan Grayson and Senator Joe Manchin all remain skeptical.

Congressman Justin Amash said:

If Americans could read classified docs, they’d be even more against Syria action. Obama admn’s public statements are misleading at best.

How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria:

The Rebels also have chemical weapons

What about evidence that the rebels also have chemical agents? Syrian soldiers have reported rebel-owned chemical agents (from Reuters, August 24, 2013):

Syrian state television said government soldiers found chemical agents in rebel tunnels in the Damascus suburb of Jobar on Saturday and some of the troops were suffocating.

The United Nations…

has had evidence that the Syrian rebels have been using sarin gas against Syrian government forces since May…

U.N. human rights investigators have gathered testimony from casualties of Syria’s civil war and medical staff indicating that rebel forces have used the nerve agent sarin…

The United Nations independent commission of inquiry on Syria has not yet seen evidence of government forces having used chemical weapons

Both the Syrian rebels and government forces are guilty of multiple war crimes, including mass killings and torture, a UN report alleges. Investigators say perpetrators have committed crimes against humanity without any fear of accountability.

Updated – Detailed Video Analysis on GRTV:

Now, new evidence is emerging that the attacks were used and manipulated by the terrorists in order to provoke the US and its allies into armed intervention in Syria. This evidence suggests that the videos used by the US and its allies to conclude what happened in Ghouta were in fact carefully stage managed to portray a narrative that would pin the blame for the attacks on Assad.

The first indications of this plot emerged early on, when expert analysis of the videos suggested inconsistencies in the footage itself.

That analysis was later expanded on by a report from ISTEAMS, a Syria-based human rights group working in conjunction with the International Institute for Peace, Justice and Human Rights. In this thorough report, published on on September 16th, numerous discrepancies and inconsistencies in the footage are documented.

And even Syrian rebels themselves have admitted to using chemical weapons:

A court indictment by the Turkish prosecutors into the alleged use of chemical weapons by the Syrian rebels has once again highlighted fears this week that sarin toxic gas was used by the opposition and not the Assad government.

The indictment alleges that Qassap tried to setup a network in Turkey in order to obtain chemical materials for the al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham Brigades. Citing telephone calls made by the cell, the prosecution believes that the group ordered at least ten tons of chemicals, Al-Alam News Network reports.

The international community has long been ignoring worrying reports that the rebel fighters in Syria might be capable of carrying out a chemical attack.

The Mail Online published an article entitled “US Backed Plan to Launch Chemical Weapon Attack on Syria and Blame it on Assad Government” but the article was pulled from its website within 24 hours. See link below for a screenshot:

There is reason to believe that these emails may have been faked. See video below:

It has been admitted that the US government has been providing weapons to the rebels.

The CIA has been delivering light machine guns and other small arms to Syrian rebels for several weeks, following President Barack Obama’s statement in June that he would provide lethal aid to the rebels.

The CIA also has arranged for the Syrian opposition to receive anti-tank weaponry such as rocket-propelled grenades through a third party, presumably one of the Gulf countries that has been arming the rebels, a senior U.S. intelligence official and two former intelligence officials said Thursday.

Updated from September 17: The Obama administration waived provisions of a federal law which ban the supply of weapons and money to terrorists.

A Yahoo article from January 30, 2013 speaks of leaked documents indicating the Obama administration’s intent to help stage a false flag:

The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attack plan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leaked documents have shown.

“Very remarkable. Very suggestive.”

“What do you see in it, Mr. Holmes?”

“A confirmation of what I had already thought.”

from The Adventure of the Sussex Vampire by Arthur Conan Doyle, 1924


Are you working for a news agency or for the CIA?

JOHN DANISZEWSKI: President Putin, I would like to get on to the subject of US-Russian relations but before I do, can I ask one more question about Syria. Supposing President Obama gets the support of Congress for some military actions and other countries go along, what would Russia do? Will you fight for Syria or you would be rifting relations with Syria? What’s your reaction going to be?

VLADIMIR PUTINAre you working for a news agency or for the CIA? You are asking questions that are usually posed by colleagues from other agencies. Russia has certain plans if the situation develops according to the first, second or third scenario. We have our ideas about what we will do and how we will do it if weapons are used or not used. We have our plans, but it is too early to talk about them.

From: Interview to Channel One and Associated Press news agency:

What should Obama call the next war?


Obama has decided (without any proof) that Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons attack, and though he has graciously offered to follow the Constitution and ask Congress, his administration has already indicated that it doesn’t matter what Congress or the people or anyone else thinks. We’re going ahead with the war.

So what should he call this one?


Police action?


Limited operations?

Time-limited, scope-limited military action?

A very limited operation that is geared to save lives?

An unbelievably small military action?

Kinetic military action?

A response to violations of a norm?

Overseas contingency operation?

Humanitarian mission?

Nation-building mission?

Action limited in duration and scope, a signal, the authorized use of force…

a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort…

These have all been used before. Perhaps we could come up with something better. Maybe it could be an ongoing non-diplomatic dialogue or nonlethal lethal kinetic non-diplomatic diplomacy? How about a less-lethal non-healthcare-related application of Obama’s Affordable Health Care Act? Or kinetic overseas gun-control?

Hoedown? Shindig? Limited overseas hootenanny with boots / without boots?

Let me know if you have any ideas.



Whatever Happened to the Anti-War Left?


Hello, anti-war Left! I have a couple of questions for you. Let’s start with this:

Do you still exist?

I know that people have been getting out into the streets to protest another insane war, this time in Syria, and I’ve heard some strong rhetoric against war from the likes of well-known left-wingers like, uh… Pat Buchanan and Rand Paul?

Well, yeah… may you live in interesting times!

I wonder what’s up with the anti-war Left. Could they be short of cash?


What’s up, folks? Are you tired? Confused? Split on the issue and / or short of money? Bad weather? Or could it be what most of us strongly suspect…

The President is a Democrat and he won a Peace Prize so you think it’s a humanitarian / philanthropic / spreading peace and democracy mission. Well?

Of course it is. You are still so mesmerized by Obama that you would literally buy the exact story Bush and Rumsfeld tried to cram down your throats because you cannot bring yourselves to believe that this is exactly what’s happened. Obama could copy and paste practically anything Bush ever said, have the grammar and vocabulary corrected, and read it in his best Mussolini pose to thunderous applause, and you know it’s true!

I know it’s true, because I’m watching it happen!

You would never buy into Bush’s “spreading democracy” and “surge” but you have gleefully bought into the “limited operations,” and “kinetic military action” of Barrack Obama because you are precisely THAT gullible.

Because you either believe or don’t really pay much attention to Obama’s miserably lame excuses like “no boots on the ground.” Of course! It’s not a war if there aren’t any boots on the ground. Did you really buy that without reading the fine print or did you just miss it? Boots? Seriously? That’s the level of propaganda necessary to sucker you into selling your souls to His Satanic Majesty?

So Hope and Change has come to America in the form of footwear. Maybe the troops will wear sandals instead of boots. We’ll dress them up like Jesus this time and it’ll be really cool and kinetic and peace-prizey. Maybe it’ll be Kobe’s new sneakers?

Way to hold the President’s feet to the fire!

We all know you Leftists love peace and hate war, so as long as it’s not called a “war,” it’s fine. Of course, you’d never stand for a “police action,” an “escalation” or a “conflict” because those things sound really Vietnamy. “Surges” and “Shock & Awe” operations sound too Bushy, but what about a response? Yes! A “response” sounds very nice indeed, like we’re having a dialogue with someone. That’s why I wake up every day and thank the Lord that Obama’s in charge and he ended all the wars and opens up dialogues, allows voices in Congress “to be heard” and gives “responses” to violations of international “norms.”

To be fair, I guess it’s pretty hard to get worked up over limited operations and kinetic nonlethal lethal military actions that don’t require boots on the ground (or congressional approval.) Those things aren’t catchy and take up too much space on posters. And it’s hard to imagine John and Yoko singing – kinetic military responses are over… if you want it…

What’s even harder to imagine is a Democrat agreeing with the people who have been way out in front on this issue, like Rand and Pat and many other conservatives and libertarians.

They’re screaming the loudest against war, while the other side struggles to muster a whine.


Doublespeak and Vagueness in Lead-up to Invasion of Syria

Given the insanity of Assad’s supposed chemical attack on women and children at a point in the Syrian civil war at which the government is clearly defeating the opposition, the main point in providing evidence for a US and British-led coalition of the willing to intervene militarily should be the establishment of whether or not the Assad regime was actually responsible for the attack, rather than evidence that a chemical attack did indeed occur. As of September 1, 2013, no evidence of the Assad regime’s guilt has been put forward, only evidence that a chemical attack occurred. The best arguments for strikes on Syria so far hinge on the frail logic that an atrocity occurred, and we know Assad is bad, so it must be him. Therefore there is no need to consider the possibility that it was conducted by the party with the most to gain by a chemical attack – the opposition.

However, in the world of political doublespeak, this matters very little when “activists say,” Leftists feel the need to “do something,” and neocons remain neoconnish.

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague set the propaganda tone early with cries of “conspiracy theory,” and “vanishingly small” chances.

From the BBC, Aug. 23, 2013:

UK Foreign Secretary William Hague: “It seems the Assad regime has something to hide”

“I know that some people in the world would like to say that this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria,” said Mr Hague.

“I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime.”

It was “not something that a humane or civilised world can ignore”.

“Any option that complies with international law and could save innocent lives, we have to be open to those options,” he said, but added any decisions would come later and he would not speculate about them.

He added: “This is what we are focused on and we are working with countries all over the world to try to bring this about and to try to establish the truth to the satisfaction of the world about what is clearly a terrible atrocity.

“The only possible explanation of what we have been able to see is that it was a chemical attack and clearly many, many hundreds of people have been killed, some of the estimates are well over 1,000.

“There is no other plausible explanation for casualties so intense in such a small area on this scale.”

But “plausible explanations” aren’t called for here, evidence is! It is doubtful that the British or the American people want to start a new war based on plausible explanations.

The White House was also convinced of the “undeniable” use of chemical weapons, while convictions regarding the guilty party were more in the “very little doubt” range.

Press Secretary Jay Carney reiterated that the U.S. has “very little doubt” that Assad is “culpable” in the “undeniable” use of chemical weapons in Syria, and that the intelligence community has additional information on the chemical weapons attacks, to be released in the coming days. he added that it was “profoundly in the interest of the US and the international community that that violation of an international norm be responded to.”

John Kerry also states that the evidence of an attack is “undeniable,” and promptly labels such denial as “morally suspect,” while failing to mention any evidence, yet again, of who was responsible.

Russian president Vladimir Putin told UK prime minister David Cameron that Moscow did not have evidence of whether a chemical weapons attack had taken place or who was responsible. In his speech, John Kerry described such denial as morally suspect. Evidence of chemical weapons use “is undeniable,” Kerry said.

Reports from Syria of chemical warfare “should shock the conscience of the world,” Kerry said, adding that the indiscriminate slaughter of women and children carried out by the Assad regime constitutes a “moral obscenity.”

Echoing William Hague nearly word for word, Kerry said:

that the Obama administration is “all but certain” that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to attack innocent civilians.

The immorality of using chemical weapons is clear, but the logic becomes strained when it finally comes to the question of who did it:

Kerry said the White House has “additional information” about this attack that is being compiled and reviewed by the administration and will be released in the days ahead.

While investigators are gathering additional information on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscious and guided by common sense,” Sec. Kerry said. “The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the first hand accounts from the humanitarian organizations on the ground . . . these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us are real: that chemical weapons were used in Syria.”

Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these weapons,” Kerry added.

This, in essence, is the argument, the only argument thus far provided, that Assad is guilty. “Chemical weapons were used,” and the Syrian regime has them.

Rather than bringing forward any hard evidence that Assad was involved in the atrocities, the continual Kerry mantra centers around vague language of credibility and the usual “activists say” reports:

Today’s reports of an attack on the U.N. investigators, together with the continued shelling of these very neighborhoods, only further weakens the regime’s credibility.

More often than not he doesn’t even name the Assad regime as the guilty party, the actual agent of a verb phrase, favoring instead impersonal constructions like “an attack on U.N. investigators” and “the continued shelling.”

And just in case this compelling evidence isn’t enough to justify another war, and no more evidence comes to light, Kerry reminds us that the Syrian regime has engaged in a “cynical attempt” to cover up a “cowardly crime.” In other words, they are destroying the evidence, so don’t expect any.

That is not the behavior of a government that has nothing to hide. That is not the action of a regime eager to prove to the world it had not used chemical weapons,” said Kerry. Rather, the official said the Assad regime’s latest actions are “too late to be credible.”

Of course the Obama administration has always behaved like a government with nothing to hide.

Make no mistake,” he added, “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.”

Jay Carney again:

What we are talking about here as Secretary Kerry made clear is a response to the clear violation of an international norm, and it is profoundly in the interest of the United States and the international community that that violation of an international norm be responded to,” Mr. Carney said. “The indiscriminate killing of innocent women and children and an attempt to maintain his bloody grasp on the power is despicable, but that is what we’ve come to expect from Bashar al-Assad.”

As Dave Ross points out:

So it is not an attack, but a response, and the legal justification is that we are enforcing not a law, but a “norm.”

The president’s spokesperson added that the proof of a chemical warfare attack “comes from sources well beyond the US government,”

Good to have impartial sources “well beyond the US government.” I wonder if those sources include the omnipresent, omnipotent “Activists say.”

The president makes decisions about military action or potential military action with the national security interests of the United States in mind. There is no weightier decision for the president and he has made that…clear,” Mr. Carney said.

No, the Congress makes decisions about military action, and our Constitutional lawyer President should know that. Have I made that… clear?

At least Obama remains resolved to talk and consider and waver and allow voices to be heard – his customary shtick. Meanwhile, all the evidence of Assad’s guilt lies far beyond the government, well beyond good and evil and millions of miles beyond Manti Te’o’s alleged homosexuality. Far, far from it! In fact, the evidence seems to share a certain ontological status similar to his “girlfriend.”

However, a simple Google search for “activists say” should suffice to summarize the compelling evidence that somebody did something and that now we need to act and “do something.”

Syrian regime forces kill 46 people, activists say

Troops led by Assad’s brother likely to blame for chemical weapons, Syrian activists say

Syrian activists say chemical weapons were used near Damascus

Activists say incendiary bomb hit school in Syria

Syrian activists say gas attack near Damascus killed more than 200

Updated – Activists say 500 killed in gas attack near Damascus

Syrian Activists Say 100 People Killed In Alleged Gas Attack

Activists say intense Syrian government shelling has killed eight women and girls in the southern province of Daraa.

Syrian activists say ‘toxic gas’ killed scores

Syrian airstrike kills 20, activists say

You can get any war you want, at Activists Restaurant…

Apologies to Arlo Guthrie.

In summary: There are “vanishingly small chances” that the Assad regime, as sources “well beyond the US government” plausibly explain, is with “very little doubt” not responsible for the attacks which are undeniably chemical, and we have to be open to any option which “complies with international law,” including a “response” to violations of a “norm.”

I’m guessing the “response” won’t be a warlike one, as it will be “kinetic” in nature and won’t involve “boots on the ground.” Hopefully they’ll be using those nonlethal lethal weapons I’ve heard about.

“And they was using up all kinds of cop equipment that they had hanging around the police officer’s station. They was taking plaster tire tracks, foot prints, dog smelling prints, and they took twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us. They took pictures of the approach, the getaway, the northwest corner, the southwest corner and that’s not to mention the aerial photography…” – Arlo Guthrie, Alice’s Restaurant 

“There’s an old saying in Tennessee… I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee, that says, fool me once, shame on… shame on you. But fool me – can’t get fooled again. – George W. Bush