The Syrian Protest


Obama’s riddle: How to strike without
sparking Syrian retaliation


nTSc8.WiPh2.91.jpg

Hundreds of demonstrators protest against the U.S. intervention in Syria outside
the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. | Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT



WASHINGTON — With President Barack Obama lobbying Congress to
agree to the United States’ punishing Syria for alleged use of
chemical weapons, he must convince wary lawmakers that Syria’s
response won’t lead to tit for tat retaliation that escalates
the conflict.

Obama has repeatedly vowed a targeted attack won’t seek to oust
President Bashar al Assad or aid the rebels. But the use of
force often brings unintended consequences.

“Anyone who claims to have a crystal ball here doesn’t,” warned
Paul R. Pillar, a former senior CIA official with
responsibilities in the Middle East. “This does stir the pot in
ways that increase the risk or chance of certain things
happening, even though one can’t place specific odds on it or
make a specific prediction.”

Pillar and other experts scoff at the notion of a surgical hit,
noting that military forays into Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan
have all brought consequences of second and third order.

“This ought to remind people that it is very unlikely that
anything we do in a limited way is going to be limited in the
way we prefer,” said Pillar, who now teaches at Georgetown
University in the nation’s capital.

Assad’s most immediate way to punish American attacks could be
to retaliate in a way that drives up oil prices, squeezing the
already soft U.S. and European economies.

As tensions with Syria rose two weeks ago, the price of U.S.
crude oil soared past $112 a barrel before edging back to a
range between $107 and $109 a barrel. Traders justify the high
prices as a “security” premium; U.S. oil remained above $107 a
barrel at the end of trading Friday.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/07/201462/obamas-riddle-how-to-strike-without.html#storylink=cpy



 

Obama’s Syria mission becomes muddier
in its explanation to Congress


e76uc.WiPh2.91.jpg


Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey (left), Secretary of State John Kerry and
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel testify at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday to argue
the Obama administration;s case for using military force in Syria | Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/MCT




The high-drama hearings, stakeouts, speeches and briefings about
the U.S. military response to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s
alleged use of chemical weapons last month raised more
questions than they answered. All the clamor on Capitol Hill,
at the White House and beyond left Americans uncertain about
the costs, consequences and extent of a risky intervention that
is still in the works.

Analysts and lawmakers across the political spectrum were openly
skeptical that Obama and his aides could make good on their
repeated pledges that a U.S. strike would be of limited scope
and short duration, likely delivered by Tomahawk cruise
missiles and with no American troops in Syria.

Despite Secretary of State John Kerry’s assurances to Congress
during two days of testimony that “the president is not asking
you to go to war,” a bipartisan consensus emerged that once the
bombs start flying, all bets are off – especially in a country
like Syria, torn by two years of civil strife and, more
broadly, in a region as volatile as the Middle East.



In a town where Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on the
time of day, there was an odd concurrence between the
objections raised by lawmakers from the two parties.

“I think there’s a reasonable argument that the world may be
less stable because of this, and that it may not deter another
chemical weapons attack,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told Kerry.

“Iraq is as violent today as any time in its history, and
Afghanistan is as poor and corrupt as it’s always been,” Rep.
Brian Higgins, D-N.Y., told Kerry. “The American people are
sick and tired of war. It’s time to nation-build in America
and invest in the growth of the American economy.”



Regardless of how an initial U.S. strike in Syria would play
out, the ghosts of troubled wars past haunted the debate in
Congress, from presidents’ frequent false assurances that the
tide was turning in Vietnam to former Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld’s cocky assertion that U.S. troops in Iraq faced
only “pockets of dead-enders” in March 2003, seven years and
4,300 American deaths before the end of U.S. combat there.

While Obama won a compromised victory with narrow passage of a
war resolution by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
senators from his own party defected. And the man Obama
defeated in the 2008 presidential election, maverick Republican
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, raised red flags by inserting a
clause defining one of the U.S. mission’s purposes as “change
the momentum on the battlefield in Syria,” an ambitious goal
that seems beyond the reach of a limited missile strike with no
American troops in place.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/06/201430/obamas-syria-mission-becomes-muddier.html#storylink=cpy



 
Is it Syria or Obama? GOP turning anti-war


7wm6N.WiPh2.91.jpg

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) is leaning to voting "no" on Syria | Michael Ainsworth/MCT



WASHINGTON — The Republican Party may be turning anti-war.

Some of the shift is driven by visceral distrust of President
Barack Obama, who is the one proposing military strikes against
Syria. Some is driven by remorse and lessons learned from the
Iraq war. And some is fed by the isolationist and libertarian
strains of the grassroots tea party movement.

Plenty of Republicans, including key congressional leaders,
support Obama’s push for military action against the Syrian
regime for allegedly using chemical weapons. But among
constituents, rank-and-file members of Congress and many
influential voices in the party’s echo chamber, the trend is
decidedly anti-war.

“There is a growing isolationist movement within our own party,”
said John Weaver, an Austin, Texas-based Republican consultant.

The party’s popularity surged in the late 1940s partly because
of its unrelenting stance against communism. Republicans
nominated World War II hero Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower as its
1952 presidential candidate and he won two terms. Ronald
Reagan’s presidency is still revered by supporters for his
tough talk against the Soviet Union, and in his 2005 inaugural
address, President George W. Bush redefined America’s
international mission.

Now, that’s changing.

In 2002, just seven Republicans in Congress opposed giving Bush
authorization to attack Iraq. Now, nearly 170 oppose or lean
toward opposing Obama’s request for authorization to strike
Syria, according to news media tallies.

In 2008, GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was an
impassioned supporter of the Iraq war. Now, in a Facebook post
titled “Let Allah Sort It Out,” she argued against military
action in Syria. “If our invasion of Iraq wasn’t enough of a
deterrent to stop evil men from using chemical weapons on their
own people, why do we think this will be?” she asked.



And while former Vice President Dick Cheney was a leading
advocate of invading Iraq, his daughter Liz, now seeking the
Republican Senate nomination in Wyoming, told a tea party
gathering earlier this week that she would vote against a Syria
strike. Obama, she said, has taken “an amateurish approach to
national security and foreign policy,” according to the Jackson
Hole News & Guide.

At the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank in
Washington, researchers in November lashed out at Obama for not
being tough enough on the Syrian regime of President Bashar
Assad.

“American policy toward the Syrian uprising has been an
unmitigated failure. President Obama’s glacially slow and
overly cautious policies that were intended to avoid turning
the Syrian uprising into a wider regional affair have had
exactly the opposite effect,” Heritage said. “In order to keep
this situation from crumbling further, the United States and
its allies should work to facilitate government transition when
the Assad regime falls. . . . Action must be taken sooner
rather than later.”

On Wednesday, the group’s new tea party-inspired political
operation, Heritage Action, lashed out at Obama for proposing
airstrikes against the same regime.

“Heritage Action is opposed to punitive missile strikes on the
Syrian regime,” the group said. “There is not a vital U.S.
interest at stake. Further, there is not a clear, achievable,
realistic purpose to the use of force being contemplated by the
Obama administration, and officials offered little evidence
such action would prevent further abuses.”



Some analysts see anti-Obama sentiment driving the change of
course.

“If this were a Republican president making the exact same case,
more Republicans would be supportive,” said Justin Logan,
director of foreign policy studies at the libertarian Cato
Institute.

Republicans said Obama does get a different reaction, but only
because he’s got a different track record on foreign policy and
the military.



Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate
Armed Services Committee, in 2007 pushed for a deeper military
commitment in Iraq. “Let’s do it right,” he wrote. Now, he
says, “the state of our military today cannot afford another
war.”

Donelle Harder, Inhofe’s spokeswoman, explained Friday that the
positions are consistent, and the senator has not changed his
view that America needs a strong military. “He would say that
if we had a Republican president, he wouldn’t have done to the
military what President Obama has done,” she said.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-S.C., said he cannot trust the president in
light of past foreign policy actions.

“The administration has a serious credibility issue with the
American people due to the unanswered questions surrounding the
terrorist attack in Benghazi almost a year ago,” said Duncan,
recalling last year’s attack on a U.S. consulate in Libya.
Duncan also cited questions about activity at the Internal
Revenue Service and the National Security Agency.

Even Republican leaders backing Obama can’t resist a jab.

“Frankly, two years of mixed signals from the Obama
administration, misplaced focus and a routine lack of outreach
to members of Congress have fueled pessimism in this mission. I
share that frustration,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of
Virginia wrote in Friday’s Richmond Times-Dispatch.

“But it’s not just the president’s credibility that is on the
line; it is America’s leadership in a troubled world that is in
question.”



The grassroots tea party movement is helping to rally opposition.

“No one in the administration has come up with an endgame. What
is the actual purpose?” asked Michael Openshaw, spokesman for
the North Texas Tea Party. “We as tea party people find it
extremely difficult to support this effort.”

Lawmakers with ties to the movement find strong opposition.

“I am all too aware that many Mississippians have zero desire to
engage in another conflict in the Middle East,” said Rep.
Steven Palazzo, R-Miss., elected in 2010, when the tea party
helped Republicans win control of the House.

That isolationist strain is proving increasingly popular. The
Senate’s potential 2016 Republican presidential candidates all
are pushing non-intervention and finding appreciative audiences.

“When no compelling American interests exist, we should not
intervene. No compelling interests exist in Syria,” said Sen.
Rand Paul, R-Ky. His father, Ron, then a Texas congressman, was
one of six House of Representatives Republicans to vote against
the Iraq war in 2002. Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Marco Rubio,
R-Fla., also plan to oppose the current effort to strike Syria.

The trend in the Republican Party, said Weaver, seems pointed
toward the anti-war crowd, and that could mean political danger
for the party. Said Weaver: “We could give up national security
as an advantage for the first time since Eisenhower.”




<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/static/graphics/20130904-CongressSyria/CongressSyria.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/static/graphics/20130904-CongressSyria/CongressSyria.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/09/201437/is-it-syria-or-obama-gop-turning.html#storylink=cpy


 
The U.S.[,] based on classified documents released in the past[,] will lie, cheat, and steal to maintain access to oil because of its importance, impose plutocratic capitalism, or force U.S. transnational corporate domination on a country.



If you're going to "presume" everything is a lie, why even be concerned about the truth ???


 
White House says 14 more countries sign statement on Syria action

Why won't Obama just call them the Coalition of the Willing?

Just replace Great Britain with France, which is a downgrade but whatever.


White House says 14 more countries sign statement on Syria action
Reuters – 4 hrs ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fourteen more countries have signed on to a statement condemning Syria for the August 21 chemical weapons attack, and calling for a strong international response to hold the Syrian government accountable, the White House said on Monday.

The additional countries brought the total number backing the statement to 25, as the United States tries to marshal international support for military strikes against Syria. The new countries include the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, the White House said.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-says-14-more-countries-sign-statement-164106699.html
 


If you're going to "presume" everything is a lie, why even be concerned about the truth ???



If I was handed an analysis from the U.S. about Syria, I would put it in the garbage immediately. It is from studying 250 years of U.S. History, that I would take this action.

These politicians are under inordinate pressure from the elites (or may be an elite themselves) that control their actions through political funding, future earnings after they leave office, and other measures. It is not an indictment of their personal character, the system warps them into taking actions that are not in the best interest of the American people which overwhelming are opposed to the war.
 
Obama: Diplomatic Solution In Syria
Is 'Overwhelmingly My Preference'


photo.jpg



After much diplomatic wrangling, President Obama on Monday left
open the possibility of a diplomatic solution in Syria, saying
a proposal allowing Syria to give up its chemical weapons was
a "potentially positive development."

In interviews with six television network anchors, Obama said
his administration would "run to ground" a Russian proposal
that would avoid an international military confrontation by
putting Syria's chemical weapons in international hands. As
we reported, Secretary of State John Kerry first floated the
possibility during a press conference in England this morning.
The proposal was then picked up by the Russians and Syria's
foreign minister said the country welcomed the overture.

In an interview with PBS, President Obama said if there is a
diplomatic path to stop the use of chemical weapons in Syria
it would be "overwhelmingly my preference."

Obama also added that he and Russian President Vladimir Putin
had talked about the plan now on the table both during the
recent G-20 meeting in Russia and during another meeting last
year in Mexico.

In other words, the proposal is a true diplomatic breakthrough
long in the making.

Obama said his administration will work with Russia to see if
Syria is serious about the proposal and to see if they can reach
a deal that is "enforceable and serious."

However, Obama said that he will ask Congress to move forward
with a debate on whether to approve military action against
Syria.

Now, Obama said, is not the time to let up on the pressure.

"We would not be at this point if there were not a credible
military threat standing behind the norm against the use of
chemical weapons," Obama said.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/epmT2SQrJj8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



SOURCE: National Public Radio



 
O-BOMB-A didn't seem too confident in that interview.

His body language seemed insecure. He wasn't joking or laughing or grinning or being casual to try and defuse the situation.

As he tries to sell the bullshit, his hand movements turn into Clinton, which means he knows he is selling something no one wants to buy.

Obama is such a tool. Selling war and looking stupid as he's backtracking all the way.

 

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Americans are sequestered in a bubble, like tropical fish swimming around in a home aquarium, trapped in the water behind the glass. Government officials and global trans-national corporate chieftains are all aware of the ignorance of American subjects; why wouldn't they be, after all, they created the ingrained stupidity.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The truth about this sudden hysteria about Syria is not hard to find, however you won't find the truth if you limit yourself to the American television corporate media (CBS, NBC/MSNBC, ABC, CNN, <s>FOX</s> FAKE) which sad-to-say is the sole source of "news" for most Americans willfully trapped in the aquarium.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;This Syria "-episode-" demonstrates the entrenched power of the "military-industrial-media-complex" and their quest for perpetual war. More than 200,000 deaths, including thousands "collateral damage" dead woman and children &mdash; have occurred during this Syrian civil war&mdash; and no one in the U.S. talked about sending hundreds of 3,000 pound cruise missiles slamming into Syria&mdash; an act of war.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;President Obama the greatest Machiavellian politician in modern world history has willfully forfeited all of his political capital and caved in completely to the "military-industrial-media-complex". We turn on our telescreens in our homes and we see the reemergence of war criminals Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and even BuShit pontificating about what Obama should do about Syria &mdash; we even get BuShit consigliere Karl Rove calling Obama's war starting efforts "amateur hour".

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What the hell is going on? Why would a second-term Obama allow himself to become the embodiment and facilitator of the filthy neo-con's ambition of perpetual mid-east war,&mdash; culminating with an American empire military assault against Iran.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Obama,was the U.S. President who removed the White House Oval Office bust of Winston Churchill and replaced it with Martin Luther King. Obama was the man who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize based solely upon the world's "hope" &mdash;that certainly this biracial 'Black man' was not the BuShit camarilla revisited&mdash; but a clean break from that criminal torture sanctioning regime.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;What's going on in the background that the "corporate-media-of-deception" is not telling the American people. In 2001 -2007 Syria's Assad was a U.S. partner in the WOT (War On Terror)&mdash;the U.S. was sending him people the C.I.A. kidnapped (extraordinary rendition)&mdash;for Assad to exquisitely torture with electricity applied to their genitals and whippings with steel cables and being buried alive in six foot deep holes with a couple of rats the size of house cats &mdash; Assad was a "good guy", our ally in the WOT&mdash; what happened????

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Syria as a country has been literally dissolving over the last few years due to severe drought exacerbated by climate change. In some areas, all agriculture ceased. In others crop failures reached 75%. And generally as much as 85% of livestock died of thirst or hunger. Hundreds of thousands of Syria’s farmers gave up, abandoned their farms and fled to the cities and towns in search of almost non-existent jobs and severely short food supplies. Outside observers including UN experts estimated that between 2 and 3 million of Syria’s 10 million rural inhabitants were reduced to “extreme poverty.” Most clueless Americans could not find Syria on a map but if you want to understand what is going on there, read the article by William R. Polk, a former Kennedy administration official and college professor who has been a middle east expert for 50 years.


<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/02/article-2408805-1B9243FD000005DC-681_634x588.jpg" width="350"><img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/09/03/article-2408805-1B94E57D000005DC-22_634x397.jpg" width="550">

Obama's Secretary of State John (skull & bones) Kerry who last week called Assad "Hitler" dining with his wife and Assad and his British born wife in Syria in 2009





Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson former Chief of Staff to US Secretary of State Colin Powell
says that this recent Syrian poison gas episode is possibly an Israeli "false-flag" operation








<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->'America's Greatest Export Is Hypocrisy'
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-Malcolm X<img src="http://jetcityorange.com/malcolm-x/malcolm-x-2.jpg" width="100" align="left">
</div>





HaaretzLogo.gif
logo.gif


'Moral Superpower'? Give Me A Break


It's impossible to claim that the United States, a country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II in Asia, South America and the Middle East, is driven by moral considerations

by Gideon Levy | September 5th 2013


http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.544607

An exercise in honesty (and double standards): What would happen If Israel were to use chemical weapons? Would the United States also say to attack it? And what would happen if the United States itself used such measures? True, Israel would never use weapons of mass destruction, although they are in its arsenal, except under very extreme circumstances. But it has already used weapons prohibited by international law - white phosphorous and flechette rounds against a civilian population in Gaza, and cluster munitions in Lebanon - and the world did not raise a finger. And few words are needed to describe the weapons of mass destruction used by the United States, from the nuclear bombs in Japan to napalm in Vietnam.

But Syria, of course is a different matter. After all, no one can seriously think that an American attack on the President Bashar Assad regime stems from moral considerations. Some 100,000 killed in that unfortunate country did not coax the world into action, and only the report of 1,400 killed by chemical weapons - which has not yet been conclusively proven - are rousing the world’s salvation army to act.

Neither can anyone suspect that most Israelis who support an attack – 67 percent, according to a survey by the daily Israel Hayom – are motivated by concern for the well-being of Syria’s citizens. In perhaps the only country in the world where a majority of public opinion supports an attack, the guiding principle is completely foreign: Strike the Arabs; it doesn’t matter why, it just matters how much – a lot.

Neither can anyone seriously think that the United States is a “moral superpower,” as Ari Shavit defined it in these pages (August 29). The country responsible for the most bloodshed since World War II – some say as many as 8 million dead at its hands – in Southeast Asia, South America, Afghanistan and Iraq – cannot be considered a “moral power.” Neither can the country in which a quarter of the world’s prisoners are incarcerated; where the percentage of prisoners is greater than in China and Russia; and where 1,342 people have been executed since 1976. Even Shavit’s statement “The new international order in the wake of World War II was meant to ensure that … the horrific scenario of death by gassing would not be repeated,” is disconnected from reality. In Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Rwanda and Congo, as in Syria, this baseless claim can only arouse a bitter smile.

The attack on its way will be Iraq II. The United States - which was never punished for the lies of Iraq I and the hundreds of thousands who died in vain in that war - says a similar war should be launched. Once again without a smoking gun, with only partial evidence, and with red lines that President Barack Obama himself drew, and now he is obliged to keep his word. In Syria, a cruel civil war is underway that the world must try to stop; the American attack will not do it.

Reports from Syria are apparently mainly tendentious. No one knows what exactly is going on, or the identity of the good guys and the bad guys, if they can be thus defined. We should listen to the sharp words of a nun from Syria, Sister Agnes-Mariam de la Croix, who complained to me over the weekend - from the Jerusalem monastery where she is staying on her way back from Malaysia to Syria - about the world press. Sister Agnes-Mariam described the picture differently than most: There are some 150,000 foreign jihadists in Syria, she says, and they are responsible for most of the atrocities. The Assad regime is the only one that can stop them, and the only thing the world must do is stop the flow of fighters and arms to them. “I don’t understand what the world wants. To help Al-Qaida? To establish a jihadist state in Syria?” This mother superior, whose monastery is located along the road from Damascus to Homs, is certain that an American strike will only strengthen the jihadists. “That is what the world wants? Another Afghanistan?”

Perhaps the world knows what it wants, perhaps it doesn’t. But one thing now seems clear: another American attack of choice could become another disaster.



<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"></hr>


<img src="http://www.counterpunch.org/images/header.jpg" width="600">

Prince Bandar and Zionist Lobby

Forcing Obama into a Prolonged Syrian War


bandar460x276.jpg

Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Arabia's Head of Intelligence

by Franklin Lamb

Tehran| August 29, 2013


The Bandar-Zionist lobby collaboration, currently the cocktail party talk of many in Washington, is not a case of strange bedfellows given three decades of mutual cooperation which started during Prince Bandar’s long tenure as Saudi ambassador in Washington. Based in Washington, but with a palace out west and up north, Bandar developed almost familial relationships with five presidents and their key advisers. His voice was one of the shrillest urging the United States to invade Iraq in 2003. In the 1980s, Prince Bandar was deeply involved in the Iran-Contra scandal in Nicaragua and it his intelligence agency that first alerted Western allies to the alleged use of sarin gas by the Syrian regime in February. Bandar has reportedly for months been focused exclusively on garnering international support, including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad.

Reportedly, the Saudi-Zionist discretely coordinated effort, confirmed by Congressional staffers working on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee as well and the US Senate Foreign Relations committee, is being led by Bandar protégé, Adel A. al-Jubeir, the current Saudi ambassador and facilitated by Bahrain ambassador Houda Ezra Ebrahimis Nonoo, who is the first Jewish person, and third woman to be appointed ambassador of Bahrain.Long known, for having myriad contacts at AIPAC HQ, and as an ardent Zionist, Houda Nonoo has attended lobby functions while advising associates that the “Arabs must forget about the so-called Liberation of Palestine. It will never happen.”

The project has set its sights on achieving American involvement in its third and hopefully its forth (the Islamic Republic) war in this region in just over one decade.

Labeled the ‘surgical strike project”, according to one Congressional staffer, the organizers, as of 8/26/13 are blitzing US Congressional offices with “ fact sheets” making the following arguments in favor of an immediate sustained air assault. They are being supported by the increasingly anguished cries from neo-cons in Congress such as John McCain, Lindsey Graham and their ilk.

The lobby’s missive details calculations why the project will succeed and turn out to be a political plus for Obama who is increasingly being accused, by this same team, of dithering. Bandar is arguing that Syrian threats to retaliate against Israel is only political posturing because Syria has never and will never launch a war against Israel, has no military capacity to do so and for the reason that Israel could level Damascus and the Baathist regime knows this well.

In addition, the Prince and his partners insist that Iran will do nothing but complain because it has too much to lose. Iran will not response other than verbally and has no history of attacking the US or Israel and would not risk the unpredictable consequences of a military response by the Republic Guards or even some of its backed militia in Iraq or Syria. Sources in Tehran have reported otherwise to this observer.

Hezbollah, it is claimed, will not act without orders from Tehran which has instructed it to maintain its heavy weapons in moth balls until the coming ‘big war’ with Israel.. It is widely agreed that if Israel attacks Iran, the region will ignite with Hezbollah playing an important role in targeting occupied Palestine.

McClain, a former pilot in Vietnam, is even pushing “weapons to be employed” list, which includes advising the White House and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on how to do their jobs. Congressional sources report that there is tension between McCain and the Pentagon because the Senator is implying that the Pentagon doesn’t know its job or what assets it has available and how to use them......

Read The Rest: http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/27/forcing-obama-into-prolonged-syrian-war/


<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"></hr>


logo.png


Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack


<img src="http://mnpprodpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mideast-Syria_Muha1-e1377263904358.jpg" width="800">


by Dale Gavlak & Yahya Ababneh | August 29, 2013

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...ed-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/print/

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.


Saudi involvement

In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.

“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.

“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.

According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.

“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.

Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.

The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:

His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.

Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.

Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”

But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.

Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:

Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.

It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.



<HR NOSHADE COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE="10"></HR>
 
If I was handed an analysis from the U.S. about Syria, I would put it in the garbage immediately. It is from studying 250 years of U.S. History, that I would take this action.

These politicians are under inordinate pressure from the elites (or may be an elite themselves) that control their actions through political funding, future earnings after they leave office, and other measures. It is not an indictment of their personal character, the system warps them into taking actions that are not in the best interest of the American people which overwhelming are opposed to the war.
How is selling out people's lives for money not an indictment of their personal character?
 
Intercepts caught Assad rejecting requests
to use chemical weapons, German paper says​



BERLIN — Syrian President Bashar Assad has repeatedly rejected requests from his field commanders for approval to use chemical weapons, according to a report this weekend in a German newspaper.

The report in Bild am Sonntag, which is a widely read and influential national Sunday newspaper, reported that the head of the German Foreign Intelligence agency, Gerhard Schindler, last week told a select group of German lawmakers that intercepted communications had convinced German intelligence officials that Assad did not order or approve what is believed to be a sarin gas attack on Aug. 21 that killed hundreds of people in Damascus’ eastern suburbs.

The Obama administration has blamed the attack on Assad. The evidence against Assad was described over the weekend as common sense by White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on CNN’s "State of the Union."

“The material was used in the eastern suburbs of Damascus that have been controlled by the opposition for some time,” he said. “It was delivered by rockets, rockets that we know the Assad regime has, and we have no indication that the opposition has.”

Russia has questioned that logic, announcing last week that in July it filed a 100-page long “technical and scientific” report on an alleged March 19 chemical weapons attack on a suburb of Aleppo that it says implicates rebel fighters.

A U.N. team dispatched to Syria to investigate the March 19 attack was sent to the scene of the Aug. 21 incident. The samples it collected are currently being analyzed in Europe at labs certified by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that monitors compliance with chemical weapons bans.

The German intelligence briefing to lawmakers described by Bild am Sonntag fits neither narrative precisely. The newspaper’s article said that on numerous occasions in recent months, the German intelligence ship named Oker, which is off the Syrian coast, has intercepted communications indicating that field officers have contacted the Syrian presidential palace seeking permission to use chemical weapons and have been turned down.

The article added that German intelligence does not believe Assad sanctioned the alleged attack on August 21.

Last week, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, also citing a briefing for German legislators, said that the Oker had intercepted a phone call between a commander from the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah and an official at an unidentified Iranian embassy saying that Assad had ordered the Aug. 21 chemical attack out of anger. The Hezbollah commander called the attack a “huge mistake,” Der Spiegel said. It was not clear if the two news accounts were based on the same or different briefings.

Assad told American journalist Charlie Rose in an interview to be broadcast in its entirety Monday night on PBS that “there has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people.”

Even if Assad didn’t approve the use of chemical weapons, he’d likely be held responsible for its use by a rogue unit within Syria’s security forces.

David Butter, a Syria expert with the British think tank Chatham House, called the German intelligence “an interesting distraction, but nothing more right now.”

“To build a case that Assad had no role in the use of chemical weapons, we’d need a lot more evidence,” he said. “And, of course, as head of state, if a war crime has been committed by his regime, he is ultimately responsible.”



The German intelligence report would seem to fit the European mood of the moment, however, that U.S. military action must wait for the results of the U.N. investigation. “What happened is all very murky,” Butler said. “Let’s wait for the United Nations investigation before talking about the next step.”

European foreign ministers on Saturday issued a statement calling the Aug. 21 attack a “war crime,” but said nothing should be done without U.N. approval. New opinion polls over the weekend in France, Germany and Great Britain showed strong disapproval of military action in Syria. The British poll, done for The Sunday Telegraph, indicated only 19 percent of the population backs the idea of military action with the United States, while 63 percent oppose it. The polls in France and Germany showed similar margins of opposition.

Meanwhile, a new tabulation of the dead from the Aug. 21 incident raised more questions about Obama administration officials’ account of what took place.

The Damascus Center for Human Rights Studies, an anti-Assad group, said that it had been able to document 678 dead from the attacks, including 106 children and 157 women. The report said 51 of the dead, or 7 percent, were fighters from the Free Syrian Army, the designation used to describe rebels that are affiliated with the Supreme Military Council, which the U.S. backs.

The report said that the organization was certain that more than 1,600 died in the attack, but that it had not been able to confirm the higher number.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has said 1,429 people died Aug. 21, included 426 children, but has not said how the United States obtained the figures. Other estimates have ranged from a low of “at least 281” by the French government to 502, including “tens” of rebel fighters and about 100 children, by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a London-based group that tracks violence in Syria.



Email: mschofield@mcclatchydc.com Twitter: @mattschodcnews



Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/09/201515/intercepts-caught-assad-rejecting.html#storylink=cpy


 
Leaked Iranian letter warned US that Syrian rebels have chemical weapons

Leaked Iranian letter warned US that Syrian rebels have chemical weapons
Syrian President Assad's strongest international backer, Iran, said it has warned the US about chemical weapons in rebel hands for more than a year.
By Scott Peterson | Christian Science Monitor
Mon, Sep 9, 2013

As a primary backer of the Syrian government, Iran has argued vehemently against US airstrikes, warned that sectarian "fire" will spread, and that jihadi rebels may have been behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack that US officials say killed more than 1,400 people near Damascus.

According to leaked diplomatic correspondence, Iran has been warning Washington since July 2012 that Sunni rebel fighters have acquired chemical weapons, and called on the US to send “an immediate and serious warning” to rebel groups not to use them.

In a letter acquired by The Christian Science Monitor that was sent sometime in the spring, Iran told American officials that, as a "supporter" of the rebels, the US would be held responsible for any rebel use of chemical weapons.

http://news.yahoo.com/leaked-iranian-letter-warned-us-syrian-rebels-chemical-184400423.html
 
FYI: How Do You Dispose Of Chemical Weapons?


FYI: How Do You Dispose Of Chemical Weapons?


In the midst of a particularly brutal civil war, international attention focused on the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against civilians. With a potential deal on the table for Russia to take and store Syria's chemical weapons, here is a look at what chemical weapons are, and what it takes to safely dispose of them.

What are chemical weapons?
Broadly, a chemical weapon is a toxic chemical delivered by an explosion, such as a bomb, artillery shell, or missile. Chemical weapons injure and kill people through horrific reactionsincluding choking, nerve damage, blood poisoning, and blistering.

The first chemical weapons, used in World War I, were gases released from canisters. Today, chemical weapons are typically liquids carried in bombs or shells. The chemicals, like sulfur mustards (commonly called mustard gas) or sarin, are dispersed in the air like a mist. Technically, this means they aren't gases; they're liquid aerosol, with droplets carried through the air.
[Click to view image: '5f4_1378909527-chemical-weapons.jpg']
LiveLeak-dot-com-5f4_1378909527-chemical-weapons.jpg.resized.jpg

When have chemical weapons been used?World War I saw the first major use of chemical weapons, with 124,000 metric tons of chemical agent unleashed by nations including the UK, Germany, and France.

Before World War II, Italy used chemical weapons in Ethiopia, and during World War II, Japan used them in China.

Throughout the Cold War, both the Soviet Union and the United States developed and stockpiled chemical weapons. While the United States never used them in war, a declassified CIA document alleges Soviet use during their invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

Egypt was the first country to use chemical weapons in war after World War II. Egypt joined a civil war in Yemen in 1963, where the Egyptian militarty dropped sulfur mustard bombs on enemy troops sheltering in mountain caves.

Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein used sulfur mustards and the nerve agent Tabun against Iran in the 1980s, during the Iran-Iraq war, and against the Kurdish people in northern Iraq in 1988.

Chemical weapons appear to have been used against civilians in the ongoing Syrian Civil War, between the dictatorial regime of Bashar al Assad and a loose collection of rebel groups. Syria's chemical weapons stockpile predates the recent conflict. Following a series of military defeatsin war against Israel, the Syrian government began amassing sulfur mustards, sarin, and VX (a nerve agent). Syria could have acquired its first chemical weapons as early as 1973, andpublicly admitted to a stockpile in 2012; a foreign ministry spokesman said the weapons would only be used against foreign intervention.
LiveLeak-dot-com-5f4_1378909527-13_cwpreccu.jpg.resized.jpg

[Click to view image: '5f4_1378909527-13_cwpreccu.jpg']
Isn't there a treaty banning chemical weapons?
There is! In fact, there have been several. The first treaty banning chemical weapons actually predates their use. At the 1899 Hague Convention, signatories agreed to not use "Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases." Germany, France, and the UK broke this agreement during WWI.

Currently, chemical weapons are banned by the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations that took effect in 1997. It bans the creation and use of chemical weapons, mandates their destruction, and encourages international cooperation in chemistry and the chemical trades. Five countries have not signed the treaty: Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan, and Syria.

The convention is fairly strict about what counts as a chemical weapon. Agent Orange, a herbicide and defoliant used by the United States in the Vietnam War, does not count as a chemical weapon under the rules of the treaty, despite the fact that it has been linked to cancer, heart disease, and birth defects.


LiveLeak-dot-com-5f4_1378909527-PuebloChemicalWespons.jpg.resized.jpg

[Click to view image: '5f4_1378909527-PuebloChemicalWespons.jpg']

The Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant: US Army, via Wikimedia Commons

How do militaries dispose of chemical weapons?Al Mourani, director of the USAF counterproliferation center in Alabama and author of Chemical Demilitarization: Public Policy Aspects, tells Popular Science that disposal depends on how the weapon was designed:


There's storage in ton containers, where a bulk agent is stored in a metal container with a spigot on it, and then there's munition-filled chemical weapons. These were not meant to be disposed; it was kind of a design oversight, if you will. No one thought about breaking them open, draining the chemical agents, and safely disposing them. Everyone thought you were going to shoot them. That's how you get rid of them.There are two major ways to dispose of chemical weapons: incineration and neutralization.Incineration uses a tremendous amount of heat to turn the toxic chemical into mostly ash, water vapor, and carbon dioxide. Neutralization breaks the chemical agent down using water and a caustic compound, like sodium hyrdoxide. Both ways generate a waste product: incineration generates ash, and neutralization leaves a large amount of liquid waste that must be stored or further processed.
LiveLeak-dot-com-5f4_1378909527-dsc00101__2_.jpg.resized.jpg

[Click to view image: '5f4_1378909527-dsc00101__2_.jpg']
Can disposal be done on the battlefield?
It can be, though not without some problems. Mourani describes a process used in Iraq in 1991. "We'd come across a bunch of rockets, and you suspect there might be some chemicals in them," he says. "The field expedient way, if you're in a hurry, is to blow it up in place." Army Explosive Ordinance Demolition teams would use a 10-to-1 ratio of explosives to suspected chemical weapons. The heat from the explosives will destroy almost all of the chemical agent in the weapons, and the "very, very low concentration" of whatever wasn't destroyed was dispersed in the air, hopefully harmlessly. There is a chance, however, that this dispersal was one of the many factors behind Gulf War Syndrome, an illness seen in veterans of the Persian Gulf War.
LiveLeak-dot-com-5f4_1378909527-155mmMustardGasShells.jpg.resized.jpg

[Click to view image: '5f4_1378909527-155mmMustardGasShells.jpg']
How does the U.S. Army dispose of chemical weapons?The Army has a mobile chemical weapons disposal unit. The United States has nine chemical weapons sites where America's stockpile of chemical weapons is being disposed. While the mobile site is getting press related to Syria, Mourani thinks it has a more mundane purpose. Two disposal sites, one in Pueblo, Colo., and another in Richmond, Ky., are both under construction, and, Mourani says, "they both have leakers" in their stored chemical weapons, so "the mobile unit goes out to neutralize the chemical agent."

So if the chemical gets burnt, what about the metal shell it was in?Mourani explains: "You have to thermally decontaminate the metal. You can't get the heat high enough to vaporize metal, but what you can do is heat up the metal munitions and burn the tonnage that comes with it. Once that's done, the metal scrap can be sold to industry." The thermal decontamination is done at extremely high temperatures.

Are some chemical weapons easier to destroy than other?There are precursor chemicals, which are the components used to make a chemical weapon that aren't the weapon itself yet, and those are easier to dispose, because they might have industrial applications and can be sold to companies. For the weapons themselves?

"As far as sarin, mustard, or VX goes, they all have challenges," says Mourani. Sarin can evaporate when handled. Mustard and VX can spill into the soil, which then means the soil has to be dug up and cleaned. But other than that, it's basically the same process: they all go into a tank for neutralization or an incinerator the same way.

LiveLeak-dot-com-5f4_1378909527-1012px-Flanders_WWI_gas_attack.jpg.resized.jpg

[Click to view image: '5f4_1378909527-1012px-Flanders_WWI_gas_attack.jpg']

French Soldiers Attack German Trenches With Gas In World War One: US Army, via Wikimedia Commons

What countries have experience disposing of chemical weapons?
The countries that have the most experience getting rid of chemical weapons are the United States and Russia, owing to their massive Cold War chemical weapons stockpiles. According to Mourani, Russia had 40,000 tons at its peak, while the United States amassed around 30,000 tons. Both nations have used incineration and neutralization to dispose of chemical agents on a large scale.

Has a country besides Syria ever given up its chemical weapons to another for disposal?Yes! One good example is Albania, which had 16 metric tons of chemical weapons that they gave to the United States for disposal. Destruction was completed in 2007 and cost $48 million.

How long does it take to clean up a chemical weapons site?
Years, more likely decades, depending on the size of the program. In 1986, Congress passed a law mandating destruction of chemical weapons in the United States, and while a tremendous amount of the stockpile has been destroyed, the work will continue well into the next decade, with the last site set to start disposal in 2020.

What's the bottom line on chemical weapons disposal?
"There's no easy solution, there's no pixie dust, magic vaporization portal," says Mourani,

Any way you cut it, you're going to have waste. The bottom line is: can it be done safely and effectively? Absolutely, especially when you pour $2 billion per disposal site. When money is no object, you can certainly make it safe enough for the surrounding community. You take your time, you do it slowly, it will get done.Disposal in Syria presents significant problems: "You can't do it slowly, you can't do it safely," Mourani says. "There's going to be an obvious security risk the whole time you're trying to dispose of these things. It's going to get very expensive, very challenging to maintain security, to move chemical weapons and destroy them."


Source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-09/fyi-chemical-weapons-and-disposal
 

<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->'America's Greatest Export Is Hypocrisy'
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-Malcolm X<img src="http://jetcityorange.com/malcolm-x/malcolm-x-2.jpg" width="100" align="left">
</div>
<object width="420" height="245" id="msnbc78fefb"><param name="movie" value="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" /><param name="FlashVars" value="launch=52979025&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><embed name="msnbc78fefb" src="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32545640" width="420" height="245" FlashVars="launch=52979025&amp;width=420&amp;height=245" allowscriptaccess="always" allowFullScreen="true" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object><p style="font-size:11px; font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #999; margin-top: 5px; background: transparent; text-align: center; width: 420px;">Visit MSNBCNews.com for <a style="text-decoration:none !important; border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;" href="http://www.msnbcnews.com">breaking news</a></p>


logo_mol.gif


Rumsfeld 'Sold' Saddam's Iraq Chemical Weapons


ilwhRC.jpg
[wm]http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/shakinghands_high.wmv[/wm]


by William Lowther | Daily Mail

US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld helped Saddam Hussein build up his arsenal of deadly chemical and biological weapons, it was revealed last night.

As an envoy from President Reagan 19 years ago, he had a secret meeting with the Iraqi dictator and arranged enormous military assistance for his war with Iran.

The CIA had already warned that Iraq was using chemical weapons almost daily. But Mr Rumsfeld, at the time a successful executive in the pharmaceutical industry, still made it possible for Saddam to buy supplies from American firms.

They included viruses such as anthrax and bubonic plague, according to the Washington Post.

The extraordinary details have come to light because thousands of State Department documents dealing with the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war have just been declassified and released under the Freedom of Information Act.......

Read the rest
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html?printingPage=true


zippy-again-4.gif
obama-permission.png
 
Last edited:

Analytic Guidance: The Syria Crisis



179598037%20%281%29.jpg




Analysis
Stratfor
SEPTEMBER 12, 2013


Analysis

Editor's note: Periodically, Stratfor publishes guidance produced for its analysis team and shares it with readers. This guidance sets the parameters used in our own ongoing examination and assessment of events surrounding Syria's use of chemical weapons as the crisis evolves into a confrontation between the United States and Russia. Given the importance we ascribe to this fast-evolving standoff, we believe it important that readers have access to this additional insight.


In the wake of President Barack Obama's change of tack from a strike on Syria, the threat of war has not dissolved. It has, however, been pushed off beyond this round of negotiations.

The president's minimalist claims are in place, but they are under serious debate. There is no chance of an attack on chemical weapons stockpiles. Therefore, the attack, if any, will be on command and control and political targets. Obama has options on the table and there will be force in place for any contingency he selects. Nothing is locked in despite public statements and rhetoric in Washington, London, Paris or Moscow.

Remember that all public statements now are meant to obscure real plans and intentions. They are intended to shape the environment. Read them, but do not look at them as anything more than tactics.

The issue has morphed into a U.S.-Russian confrontation. Russia's goal is to be seen as an equal of the United States. It wins if it can be seen as a protagonist of the United States. If it can appear that Washington has refrained from an attack because of Russian maneuvers, Moscow's weight increases dramatically. This is particularly the case along Russia's periphery, where doubts of American power abound and concern over Russian power abides.

This is not merely appearance. After all that has been said, if the United States buys into some Russian framework, it will not be seen as a triumph of diplomacy; it will be seen as the United States lacking the will to act and being pushed away out of concern for the Russians.

The Russian ploy on weapons controls was followed by the brilliant move of abandoning strike options. Obama's speech the night of Sept. 10 was addressed to the U.S. public and Obama's highly fractured base; some of his support base opposes and some -- a particular audience -- demands action.

He cannot let Syria become the focus of his presidency, and he must be careful that the Russians do not lay a trap for him. He is not sure what that trap might look like, and that's what is unnerving him as it would any president. Consequently, he has bought time, using the current American distaste for military action in the Middle East. But he is aware that this week's dislike of war can turn into next week's contempt on charges of weakness. Obama is an outstanding politician and he knows he is in quicksand.

The Russians have now launched a diplomatic offensive that emphasizes to both the Arabs in the Persian Gulf opposing Bashar al Assad and the Iranians supporting him that a solution is available through them. It requires only that they ask the Americans to abandon plans for action. The message is that Russia will solve the chemical weapons problem, and implicitly, collaborate with them to negotiate a settlement.

Obama's speech on Sept. 10, constrained by domestic opinion, came across as unwilling to confront the Russians or al Assad. The Russians are hoping this has unnerved al Assad's opponents sufficiently to cause them to use the Russians as their interlocutors. If this fails the Russians have lost nothing. They can say they were statesmen. If it succeeds, they can actually nudge the regional balance of power.



The weakness of the Russian position is that it has no real weight. The limit on American military action is purely domestic politics. If the United States chooses to hit Syria, Russia can do nothing about it and will be made to look weak, the tables thus turned on them.

At this point, all signs indicate that the domestic considerations dominate U.S. decision-making. If the Russian initiative begins to work, however, Obama will be forced to consider the consequences and will likely act. The Arabs suspect this and therefore will encourage the Russians, hoping to force the U.S. into action.

The idea that this imbroglio will somehow disappear is certainly one that Obama is considering. But the Russians will not want that to happen. They do not want to let Obama off the hook and their view is that he will not act. Against this backdrop, they can appear to be the nemesis of the United States, its equal in power and its superior in cunning and diplomacy.

This is the game to watch. It is not ending but still very much evolving.






"<a href="http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/analytic-guidance-syria-crisis">Analytic Guidance: The Syria Crisis </a> is republished with permission of Stratfor."



 
Wow!

QueEx finally posted a story that did not go through the State-run, propaganda machine and actually provided insight into what has happened, what is happening, and what could happen.

These are strange times for the Politics Board.
 
Wow!

QueEx finally posted a story that did not go through the State-run, propaganda machine and actually provided insight into what has happened, what is happening, and what could happen.

These are strange times for the Politics Board.

Maybe you should consider critically listening, reading and thinking before rattling off that white this, jew that, stew.

Most of the time, I'm just posting different POV's. I don't necessarily agree or disagree with them, in whole or in part. Just food for critical thought; hoping readers might find and extract the rational kernel.

Oh, BTW: Stratfor is run, owned and published by George Friedman whom I believe is an American of Jewish Hungarian descent :lol:


 
http://blackagendareport.com/content/who-are-minions-war-black-caucus

Who Are the Minions of War in the Black Caucus?
Tue, 09/10/2013 - 20:52 — Glen Ford


by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

For the first time in five years, “the Black Caucus was treated like royalty, rather than a nuisance, as is usual, at the White House.” The reason: Obama needs their votes to continue his rush to war against Syria. “If past voting behavior is a guide, the majority of the Caucus is likely to put Obama’s political interests ahead of their constituents’ wishes and the welfare of humankind.”



Who Are the Minions of War in the Black Caucus?

by BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“Most Black legislators are desperately seeking a rationale to give the First Black President his license to kill.”

Susan Rice, the national security advisor who is more culpable than any current high government official in the genocide of 6 million Congolese since 1996, lectured the Congressional Black Caucus for 90 minutes at the White House on the virtues of unprovoked aerial aggression against Syria. President Obama, himself, attended the meeting for about an hour, making his pitch for a war that overwhelming numbers of Americans oppose - and that he would soon be forced to "postpone."

The Black Caucus has never been showered with such special attention in the almost five years that the Obama’s have resided on Pennsylvania Avenue. The CBC can’t get the time of day from Obama when it comes to jobs, foreclosure relief, or the sacrifice of Detroit on the alter of austerity. But when the commander-in-chief needs votes for what may go down as the most unpopular war in modern U.S. history, he summons his dutiful Negroes from out of the fields of irrelevancy, to the Big House, so that they might do their part for the maintenance of Empire.

Although slightly more Blacks favor Obama’s war plans than whites (Hispanics are the least belligerent on Syria), large majorities of Americans of all ethnicities reject a missile strike. Most Black Caucus members played coy with the press as they exited the White House, in line with the gag order issued by CBC chairperson Marcia Fudge, last Friday. Kansas City Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, who back in 2011 said Obama’s proposed “grand bargain” with the Republicans was a “Satan sandwich,” was most forthcoming to the media: “Everyone in the room wanted to say, we are with you, but simply could not.” There are good reasons, embedded in the congressional record, to believe that Cleaver will say no to Obama’s Syrian war if the matter ever comes to a vote.

“He summons his dutiful Negroes from out of the fields of irrelevancy, to the Big House, so that they might do their part for the maintenance of Empire.”

However, most Black legislators are desperately seeking a rationale to give the First Black President his license to kill. “I’m still in the undecided category,” said a lying G.K. Butterfield, of North Carolina, one of the most pro-corporate and militaristic members of the Caucus, who will surely give the president whatever he asks for. James Clyburn, the South Carolina congressman who angrily charged that Edward Snowden’s NSA spying revelations were part of a partisan plot to embarrass Obama, displayed little emotion as he returned to Capitol Hill. The president “made a good case for his issue,” said Clyburn. “There is nothing missing — it’s all about the politics of it, for me anyway.” It was almost possible to feel sorry for Baltimore’s Elijah Cummings, who seemed genuinely agonized at having to choose between his constituents’ pro-peace views and his fealty to the president. “I want him to be successful,” said Cummings, “but as I said before, I can disagree with him and still admire him and support him.” Which provides no clue as to what Cummings will do. For that, one needs to examine the lawmakers’ legislative histories.

Chairperson Fudge, who believes it is better to be silent when contemplating aggressive war in defiance of the will of one’s constituents, fairly jumped at the prospect of avoiding a vote on Syria. She was “hopeful” that the Russian-Syrian proposal to turn the Assad regime’s chemical weapons over to neutral authorities for possible later destruction “is something that is going to move forward.” But, barring that option, Fudge is clearly hoping that Obama sways the Congress to war. If the president can “make the case to the American public…he has a very good shot at getting the support in Congress. If he doesn’t, I think it’s going to be a very difficult road ahead.”

“Fudge is clearly hoping that Obama sways the Congress to war.”

Which is why the Black Caucus was treated like royalty, rather than a nuisance, as is usual, at the White House. Just as the votes of 14 Black Caucus members saved Obama’s NSA spies from a cutoff in funds, back in July (See “The Obscene 14 House NSA Negroes,” BAR, July 31), the 41 voting members of the CBC are in a position to rescue Obama’s war policies from ignominious domestic defeat. If past voting behavior is a guide, the majority of the Caucus is likely to put Obama’s political interests ahead of their constituents’ wishes and the welfare of humankind.

The roll calls of three bills tell the tale: The July 24, 2013 vote to reject an amendment to defund the NSA’s collection of phone data on Americans, which was narrowly defeated, 217-205; the December 14, 2011 House passage (283-136) of President Obama’s preventive detention bill (NNDA); and, most revealingly, the 148-265 defeat, on June 3, 2011, of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s measure calling for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Libya, which by then had become largely a race war against dark-skinned Libyans and foreign workers.

The Libya Warmongers (20)

Fully half of the full-voting members of the CBC supported the U.S.-led NATO bombing campaign that killed thousands of Libyans and led to the murder of Muammar Gaddafi and regime change. The 20 members are:

Terri Sewell AL

Karen Bass CA

Sanford Bishop GA

Hank Johnson GA

David Scott GA

Corrine Brown FL

Frederica Wilson FL

Andre Carson IN

Cedric Richmond LA

Elijah Cummings MD

Donna Edwards MD

Keith Ellison MN

Gregory Meeks NY

Mel Watt NC

G.K. Butterfield NC

Marcia Fudge OH

Chaka Fattah PA

James Clyburn SC

Eddie Bernice Johnson TX

Al Green TX

The Preventive Detention Advocates: NNDA (8)

Terri Sewell AL

Corrine Brown FL

Frederica Wilson FL

Sanford Bishop GA

David Scott GA

G.K. Butterfield NC

Al Green TX

Sheila Jackson-Lee TX

The Spy Lovers: NSA Surveillance (14)

Terri Sewell (AL)

Corrine Brown (FL)

Frederica Wilson (FL)

Sanford Bishop (GA)

Hank Johnson (GA)

David Scott (GA)

Robin Kelly (IL)

Donald Payne Jr. (NJ)

Gregory Meeks (NY)

G.K. Butterfield (NC)

Al Green (TX)

Sheila Jackson Lee (TX)

Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX)

Marc Veasey (TX)

The 24 Who Should Be Kicked Out the Door

There is an overlap of evil, of course. The 20 CBC members that supported Obama’s deceitful, unprovoked destruction of Libya cannot possibly harbor principled reservations about their president’s follow-through in Syria. In addition to this core of war mongers, Obama has firm supporters on the domestic repression front: Sheila Jackson-Lee TX, who voted to allow the military to indefinitely detain Americans without charge or trial; and Robin Kelly (IL), Donald Payne Jr. (NJ), and Marc Veasey (TX), who stood with Obama to protect the NSA’s right to keep all of us under 24-7 surveillance. Total: 24 – a clear majority of the Black Caucus.

The 7 Worst of the CBC

These are the worthless lawmakers that sided with Obama on all three crucial votes.

Sanford Bishop GA

Corrine Brown FL

G.K. Butterfield (NC)

Al Green (TX)

David Scott (GA)

Terri Sewell (AL)

Frederica Wilson (FL)

Sanford Bishop is one of only four Black congresspersons that voted to give George Bush a free pass to invade Iraq, in 2002. The others have moved on to private life, but Bishop now has far more company in the Black Caucus than he did 11 years ago.

If Obama loses any of these “Seven Worst” Negroes, then he is truly doomed.

The logic of previous roll calls says Obama should be able to count on the same 20 Caucus members that backed him in Libya, plus four more members whose votes on other measures show that they share his enthusiasm for a world of war with no end. But it is also true that public opinion is stirring in unexpected ways, and seems to crave peace more than war. The impossible may yet happen.
 
If the U.S. was so hell bent on chemical weapons, they should have stationed ships in the ocean from the start of the conflict near Syria. Instead of having bases all over the place, they should have diverted resources to this area, that would entangle the U.S.

Now we are in a position that will eventually lead to a conflict.

 
Last edited:
benghazi-9d2ce868a299426623f5415418884f4bb3faa2bf-s6-c30.jpg


Event happened a day from 9/11, near the time of the election. The public was falsely told that the attack was due to a controversial movie. A fall guy/girl, Susan Rice, was used to spin this story in the media and protect the President credibility. This lie to the public resulted in her inability to become Secretary of State, due to President Obama fear of questioning on the matter.


Now we are supposed to suspend belief on Syria and trust the credibility of this administration. The TV had looked like a State of the Union address with all the stations showing the same speech in progress. Here the media was conducting another State of the Union address, except it was the same disinformation being spewed out in the same manner; this is similar to the Iraq war.

This is not 2003 with half the internet using dialup, no Youtube or other forms of independent media. Millions of people that did not have access to the internet, now have 100 megabit connection.
 
if the u.s. Was so hell bent on chemical weapons, they should have stationed ships in the ocean from the start of the conflict near syria. Instead of having bases all over the place, they should have diverted resources to this area, that would entangle the u.s.

Now we are in a position that will eventually lead to a conflict.


? ? ?

 
benghazi-9d2ce868a299426623f5415418884f4bb3faa2bf-s6-c30.jpg


Event happened a day from 9/11, near the time of the election. The public was falsely told that the attack was due to a controversial movie. A fall guy/girl, Susan Rice, was used to spin this story in the media and protect the President credibility. This lie to the public resulted in her inability to become Secretary of State, due to President Obama fear of questioning on the matter.


Now we are supposed to suspend belief on Syria and trust the credibility of this administration. The TV had looked like a State of the Union address with all the stations showing the same speech in progress. Here the media was conducting another State of the Union address, except it was the same disinformation being spewed out in the same manner; this is similar to the Iraq war.

This is not 2003 with half the internet using dialup, no Youtube or other forms of independent media. Millions of people that did not have access to the internet, now have 100 megabit connection.

:hmm: :confused: :hmm: :confused:
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202163/framework-for-the-elimination.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1100>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202163/framework-for-the-elimination.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202165/syria-annex-a-principles.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1100>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202165/syria-annex-a-principles.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
<IFRAME SRC="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202168/syria-annex-b-joint-destruction.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1100>
<A HREF="http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/14/202168/syria-annex-b-joint-destruction.html">link</A>

</IFRAME>
 
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/09/obamas-case-for-syria-didnt-reflect-intel-consensus/

WASHINGTON, Sep 9 2013 (IPS) - Contrary to the general impression in Congress and the news media, the Syria chemical warfare intelligence summary released by the Barack Obama administration Aug. 30 did not represent an intelligence community assessment, an IPS analysis and interviews with former intelligence officials reveals.

The evidence indicates that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper culled intelligence analyses from various agencies and by the White House itself, but that the White House itself had the final say in the contents of the document.

Leading members of Congress to believe that the document was an intelligence community assessment and thus represents a credible picture of the intelligence on the alleged chemical attack of Aug. 21 has been a central element in the Obama administration’s case for war in Syria.

That part of the strategy, at least, has been successful. Despite strong opposition in Congress to the proposed military strike in Syria, no one in either chamber has yet challenged the administration’s characterisation of the intelligence. But the administration is vulnerable to the charge that it has put out an intelligence document that does not fully and accurately reflect the views of intelligence analysts.

Former intelligence officials told IPS that that the paper does not represent a genuine intelligence community assessment but rather one reflecting a predominantly Obama administration influence.

In essence, the White House selected those elements of the intelligence community assessments that supported the administration’s policy of planning a strike against the Syrian government force and omitted those that didn’t.

In a radical departure from normal practice involving summaries or excerpts of intelligence documents that are made public, the Syria chemical weapons intelligence summary document was not released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence but by the White House Office of the Press Secretary.

It was titled “Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013.” The first sentence begins, “The United States government assesses,” and the second sentence begins, “We assess”.

The introductory paragraph refers to the main body of the text as a summary of “the intelligence community’s analysis” of the issue, rather than as an “intelligence community assessment”, which would have been used had the entire intelligence community endorsed the document.

A former senior intelligence official who asked not to be identified told IPS in an e-mail Friday that the language used by the White House “means that this is not an intelligence community document”.

The former senior official, who held dozens of security classifications over a decades-long intelligence career, said he had “never seen a document about an international crisis at any classification described/slugged as a U.S. government assessment.”

The document further indicates that the administration “decided on a position and cherry-picked the intelligence to fit it,” he said. “The result is not a balanced assessment of the intelligence.”

Greg Thielmann, whose last position before retiring from the State Department was director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, told IPS he has never seen a government document labeled “Government Assessment” either.

“If it’s an intelligence assessment,” Thielmann said, “why didn’t they label it as such?”

Former National Intelligence Officer Paul Pillar, who has participated in drafting national intelligence estimates, said the intelligence assessment summary released by the White House “is evidently an administration document, and the working master copy may have been in someone’s computer at the White House or National Security Council.”

Pillar suggested that senior intelligence officials might have signed off on the administration paper, but that the White House may have drafted its own paper to “avoid attention to analytic differences within the intelligence community.”

Comparable intelligence community assessments in the past, he observed – including the 2002 Iraq WMD estimate – include indications of differences in assessment among elements of the community.

An unnamed “senior administration official” briefing the news media on the intelligence paper on Aug. 30 said that the paper was “fully vetted within the intelligence community,” and that, ”All members of the intelligence community participated in its development”.


Remember, Clapper is the guy who blatantly lied to Congress and the American people about NSA spying. And even he wouldn't touch this thing with a 10-foot pole.

In addition, Daily Caller noted recently:


The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.

According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

And Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting points outthat - as bad as the Iraq war propaganda was - at least Colin Powell actually played the intercepted communications:


Recall that Powell played tapes of Iraqi officials supposedly talking about concealing evidence of banned weapons from inspectors–which turned out to show nothing of the kind. But Powell at least played tapes of the intercepted communication, even as he spun and misrepresented their contents–allowing for the possibility of an independent interpretation of these messages. Perhaps “mindful of the Iraq experience,” Kerry allows for no such interpretation.

Indeed, the U.S. government itself admits that it doesn’t have clear evidence that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack, high-level intelligence officials think it might have been the rebels who used such weapons, Congress members who have seen the classified intelligence from the U.S. government are not impressed, and top chemical weapons experts are skeptical.
 

<div align="left"><!-- MSTableType="layout" -->'America's Greatest Export Is Hypocrisy'
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;-Malcolm X<img src="http://jetcityorange.com/malcolm-x/malcolm-x-2.jpg" width="100" align="left">
</div>




46d6ca03-121b-4a74-bb41-13cfd05aab0a.jpg


September 16, 2013 | http://www.accuracy.org/release/what-about-the-u-s-and-russias-massive-wmd-stockpiles/

Vice President Joe Biden claimed over the weekend that Syria has the “largest stockpile in the world of chemical weapons.” Dr. Meryl Nass runs the Anthrax Vaccine blog and has been regularly debunking false claims about biological and chemical weapons. She said today: “First, the U.S. stockpile is admittedly three times larger than Syria’s. The Army says so. (Based on what we think we know about Syria’s). … Second, how is it that Syria is supposed to destroy its stockpile by mid-2014 while it is going to take us till 2023 because we have to build huge palaces of destruction that won’t be complete till 2020? Then it will take three years, once everything is in place? There are mobile units that can destroy CW on site Why are we not using them for our own CW destruction?

“Are we creating an impossible timeline Syria will be forced to miss? Or are we creating a lot of fluff around our own CW, whose destruction is not that complex and did not need to be so expensive or take so long? Did we create this expensive and time-consuming destruction scenario to delay getting rid of our CW? If Syria can get rid of its by next year why can’t we? And every other country with stockpiles?”

ALICE SLATER, aslater@rcn.com
Slater is with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and the Abolition 2000 coordinating committee. She said today: “It seems particularly hypocritical and blind to go on at great length about the horrors of Syria’s weapons of mass destruction as the U.S. continues to cling to its own weapons of mass destruction, specifically its nuclear arsenal, reserving the right to use them as a deterrent and refusing to give a pledge not to be the first to use them.<div align="right">
<!-- MSTableType="layout" --><img src="http://matthewashton.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/weapons.jpg" align="right"></div> As Daniel Ellsberg has noted, by pointing our nuclear weapons at other nations we are already using them, even if we never fire them, just as a bank robber is using a gun when he points it at people to get them to turn over the money, without firing a shot. And despite our promises in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to make good faith efforts to eliminate our nuclear weapons, we are currently testing and improving the U.S. arsenal, with plans to spend over $100 billion in the coming years for new bomb factories, weapons development, and new delivery systems, by land, sea and air.

“Instead of threatening a new war over the chemical arsenals of Syria, we should be examining what steps would be required to eliminate the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Perhaps we can take up another suggestion from Vladmir Putin who has been so helpful in championing this new promising initiative to avert war with Syria by urging Syria to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention and begin the process of destroying its lethal arsenal. Putin has been very clear that there can be no further agreement between the U.S. and Russia on steps to eliminate our nuclear arsenals, containing 18,000 of the 19,0000 nuclear bombs on the planet, until the U.S. forgoes its illegal quest to militarily dominate and control space by planting missile bases in Poland, Romania and Turkey and on Navy Aegis destroyers heading to the waters off the coasts of Russia. We should call for a moratorium on missile expansion and take up Russia’s offer to move to deeper cuts in our nuclear arsenals. If Russia and the U.S. could go down to 1,000 warheads each, we could then call all the other parties the table to negotiate a treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.”
 

U.N. calculations of poison rockets’
paths implicate Syrian guard unit



ONze9.WiPh2.91.jpg



BERLIN — A U.N. report detailing the scientific evidence behind the Aug.
21 chemical weapons attack in Syria carefully avoided laying blame for the
incident. But the report’s details, particularly its calculations of the traject-
ories of the rockets that delivered poison gas to two Damascus suburbs,
point directly at President Bashar Assad’s regime, experts concluded
Tuesday after a day spent studying the U.N. findings.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/17/202429/un-calculations-of-poison-rockets.html#storylink=cpy


 

<hr noshade color="#0000ff" size="6"></hr>


logo.png


Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack


<img src="http://mnpprodpublic.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Mideast-Syria_Muha1-e1377263904358.jpg" width="800">


by <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Dale Gavlak & Yahya Ababneh</span> | August 29, 2013

http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnes...ed-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/print/

Ghouta, Syria — As the machinery for a U.S.-led military intervention in Syria gathers pace following last week’s chemical weapons attack, the U.S. and its allies may be targeting the wrong culprit.

Interviews with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital, where the humanitarian agency Doctors Without Borders said at least 355 people had died last week from what it believed to be a neurotoxic agent, appear to indicate as much.

The U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League have accused the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for carrying out the chemical weapons attack, which mainly targeted civilians. U.S. warships are stationed in the Mediterranean Sea to launch military strikes against Syria in punishment for carrying out a massive chemical weapons attack. The U.S. and others are not interested in examining any contrary evidence, with U.S Secretary of State John Kerry saying Monday that Assad’s guilt was “a judgment … already clear to the world.”

However, from numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families, a different picture emerges. Many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the dealing gas attack.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels were killed inside of a tunnel used to store weapons provided by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, who was leading a fighting battalion. The father described the weapons as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

Ghouta townspeople said the rebels were using mosques and private houses to sleep while storing their weapons in tunnels.

Abdel-Moneim said his son and the others died during the chemical weapons attack. That same day, the militant group Jabhat al-Nusra, which is linked to al-Qaida, announced that it would similarly attack civilians in the Assad regime’s heartland of Latakia on Syria’s western coast, in purported retaliation.

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K.’ “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

A well-known rebel leader in Ghouta named ‘J’ agreed. “Jabhat al-Nusra militants do not cooperate with other rebels, except with fighting on the ground. They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said.

“We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” ‘J’ said.

Doctors who treated the chemical weapons attack victims cautioned interviewers to be careful about asking questions regarding who, exactly, was responsible for the deadly assault.

The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders added that health workers aiding 3,600 patients also reported experiencing similar symptoms, including frothing at the mouth, respiratory distress, convulsions and blurry vision. The group has not been able to independently verify the information.

More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government.


Saudi involvement

In a recent article for Business Insider, reporter Geoffrey Ingersoll highlighted Saudi Prince Bandar’s role in the two-and-a-half year Syrian civil war. Many observers believe Bandar, with his close ties to Washington, has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.

Ingersoll referred to an article in the U.K.’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks alleging that Bandar offered Russian President Vladimir Putin cheap oil in exchange for dumping Assad.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” Ingersoll wrote.

“I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Bandar allegedly told the Russians.

“Along with Saudi officials, the U.S. allegedly gave the Saudi intelligence chief the thumbs up to conduct these talks with Russia, which comes as no surprise,” Ingersoll wrote.

“Bandar is American-educated, both military and collegiate, served as a highly influential Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., and the CIA totally loves this guy,” he added.

According to U.K.’s Independent newspaper, it was Prince Bandar’s intelligence agency that first brought allegations of the use of sarin gas by the regime to the attention of Western allies in February.

The Wall Street Journal recently reported that the CIA realized Saudi Arabia was “serious” about toppling Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar to lead the effort.

“They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn’t: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout,” it said.

Bandar has been advancing Saudi Arabia’s top foreign policy goal, WSJ reported, of defeating Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

To that aim, Bandar worked Washington to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned military base in Jordan.

The newspaper reports that he met with the “uneasy Jordanians about such a base”:

His meetings in Amman with Jordan’s King Abdullah sometimes ran to eight hours in a single sitting. “The king would joke: ‘Oh, Bandar’s coming again? Let’s clear two days for the meeting,’ ” said a person familiar with the meetings.

Jordan’s financial dependence on Saudi Arabia may have given the Saudis strong leverage. An operations center in Jordan started going online in the summer of 2012, including an airstrip and warehouses for arms. Saudi-procured AK-47s and ammunition arrived, WSJ reported, citing Arab officials.

Although Saudi Arabia has officially maintained that it supported more moderate rebels, the newspaper reported that “funds and arms were being funneled to radicals on the side, simply to counter the influence of rival Islamists backed by Qatar.”

But rebels interviewed said Prince Bandar is referred to as “al-Habib” or ‘the lover’ by al-Qaida militants fighting in Syria.

Peter Oborne, writing in the Daily Telegraph on Thursday, has issued a word of caution about Washington’s rush to punish the Assad regime with so-called ‘limited’ strikes not meant to overthrow the Syrian leader but diminish his capacity to use chemical weapons:

Consider this: the only beneficiaries from the atrocity were the rebels, previously losing the war, who now have Britain and America ready to intervene on their side. While there seems to be little doubt that chemical weapons were used, there is doubt about who deployed them.

It is important to remember that Assad has been accused of using poison gas against civilians before. But on that occasion, Carla del Ponte, a U.N. commissioner on Syria, concluded that the rebels, not Assad, were probably responsible.



<HR NOSHADE COLOR="#0000FF" SIZE="10"></HR>



<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Dale Gavlak</span>, AP freelancer, says report of rebel
chemical weapons use not hers​


McClatchy Foreign Staff
By Mitchell Prothero
Saturday, September 21, 2013



BEIRUT — A freelance contributor to the Associated Press whose byline appeared on a controversial story that alleged Syrian rebels had gassed themselves in an accident told McClatchy on Saturday that she did not write the article and has been seeking to have her name removed from it since it was published by a small Minnesota-based website.

<SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">Dale Gavlak</span>, a long time contributor from the Middle East to AP, released an email statement to McClatchy and several blogs denying any role in reporting the story, which was published Aug. 29 by Mint Press News, which describes itself with the phrase “independent advocacy journalism.” The article carried her byline along with that of Yahya Ababneh, a Jordanian Arab-language journalist.

The story likely would have gone unnoticed in pre-Internet days. But thanks to social media such as Twitter and Facebook, it’s become a crucial piece of evidence for those arguing that the rebels, not the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, were most likely responsible for an Aug. 21 chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs.

Within hours of the story’s release, Mint Press’s website crashed from excessive traffic, and <SPAN style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffff00">the story continues to be cited by conspiracy-minded websites and supporters of the embattled Assad government in the wake of a U.N. investigation whose findings, many say, implicate the Syrian military.</span>

In a phone conversation on Saturday, Gavlak, whose AP connection is often held up as evidence of the reliability of the Mint Press story, confirmed the statement and described a timeline in which she had been trying for weeks to get Mint Press to remove her name from the story. Gavlak referenced her emailed statement in the interview, saying she could not go much beyond it for legal reasons.

"Mint Press News incorrectly used my byline for an article it published on August 29, 2013, alleging chemical weapons usage by Syrian rebels,” the statement reads. “Despite my repeated requests, made directly and through legal counsel, they have not been willing to issue a retraction stating that I was not the author.”

“Yahya Ababneh is the sole reporter and author of the Mint Press News piece,” the statement added. “I did not travel to Syria, have any discussions with Syrian rebels, or do any other reporting on which the article is based. The article is not based on my personal observations and should not be given credence based on my journalistic reputation.”

Because of the incident, Gavlak and at least one other contributor to Mint News have ended their relationships with the website, which was founded nearly two years ago by Mnar Muhawesh, who is in her mid 20s.

Muhawesh, who was described in a January 2012 story on the MinnPost website as the daughter of Palestinian immigrants who graduated from college with a degree in journalism, did not respond to requests for comment left on her cell phone and sent to her Twitter and email accounts.

However, she later released a statement in which she said Gavlak and Ababneh had both come under pressure to disavow the story.

“We are aware of the tremendous pressure that Dale and some of our other journalists are facing as a result of this story, and we are under the same pressure as a result to discredit the story,” the statement said. “We are unwilling to succumb to those pressures for MintPress holds itself to the highest journalistic ethics and reporting standards.”



Gavlak produced a series of emails detailing her unsuccessful attempt to have Mint News either clarify the article’s background or remove it from the site. The emails begin almost immediately after publication of the story on Aug. 29th and continued through the weekend until Sept. 2.

The initial email detailing the filing of the story – Gavlak admits to helping Ababneh convert his Arabic reporting into English – reads “Pls find the Syria story I mentioned uploaded on Google Docs. This should go under Yahya Ababneh’s byline. I helped him write up his story but he should get all the credit for this.”

After seeing the story published under her name and the amount of interest it was generating – in large part because of the credibility lent to it by her relationship with AP, which bills itself as the “world’s oldest and largest newsgathering organization” – Gavlak demanded her name be removed. Muhawesh refused.

"We will not be removing your name from the byline as this is an existential issue for MintPress and an issue of credibility as this will appear as though we are lying," Gavlak said Muhawesh responded.



The story remains on the website with a note that Gavlak “researched and wrote” the story.



Gavlak implied that the nearly three-week delay in her public repudiation of the claim was due to legal advice and pressure from the AP to let the controversy over the story die down since the story, which was thinly sourced, was not picked up by any major media outlets.



In a statement to McClatchy, Paul Colford, AP’s director of media relations, declined to discuss details of AP’s internal discussions or its communications with Gavlak about the story. But he said it was “obviously of paramount importance… that this was not seen as assigned, edited or distributed in anyway [by the Associated Press.] AP had absolutely nothing to do with it.”




Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/21/202832/ap-freelancer-says-report-of-rebel.html#storylink=cpy


 
Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack

Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
By Adrian Lee | The Atlantic Wire
Sun, Dec 8, 2013

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has dropped yet another bombshell allegation: President Obama wasn't honest with the American people when he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack in that killed hundreds of civilians.

In early September, Secretary of State John Kerry said the United States had proof that the nerve-gas attack was made on Assad's orders. "We know the Assad regime was responsible," President Obama told the nation in an address days after this revelation, which he said pushed him over the "red line" in considering military intervention.

But in a long story published Sunday for the London Review of Books, Hersh — best known for his exposés on the cover-ups of the My Lai Massacre and of Abu Ghraib – said the administration "cherry-picked intelligence," citing conversations with intelligence and military officials.

A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’

Here's what Hersh alleges:

The administration buried intelligence on the fundamentalist group/rebel group al-Nusra. It was seen, Hersh says, as an alarming threat by May, with the U.S. being aware of al-Nusra member able to make and use sarin, and yet the group – associated with the rebel opposition in Syria – was never considered a suspect in the sarin attacks. Hersh refers to a top-secret June cable sent to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency that said al-Nusra could acquire and use sarin. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency could not find the document in question, even when given its specific codes.

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, told a press conference: ‘It’s very important to note that only the [Assad] regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition possesses sarin.’

It is not known whether the highly classified reporting on al-Nusra was made available to Power’s office, but her comment was a reflection of the attitude that swept through the administration.

The administration was learning about the attack at roughly the same speed civilians were. Hersh says the thorough daily intelligence briefings in the days surrounding the gas attack did not make a single mention of Syria, even as videos and photos of the attack went viral across the Internet. He added that there was revealed a sensor system in Syria that had, in December 2012, shown sarin production at a chemical weapons depot arranged by the Syrian army. Though it was unclear whether this was a simulation or not – all militaries, Hersh says, practice simulations of such things – Obama promptly warned Syria that use of sarin gas would be "unacceptable."

‘If what the sensors saw last December was so important that the president had to call and say, “Knock it off,” why didn’t the president issue the same warning three days before the gas attack in August?’

The media succumbed to confirmation bias in response to a UN report on the attack. That report, which is less than certain in its terms, said that the spent weapon "indicatively matches" the specifics of a 330mm calibre artillery rocket. MIT professor Theodore Postol and other munitions experts later reviewed the photos and said that it was improvised, likely made locally, didn't match anything in the Syrian arsenal and would not have been able to travel the nine kilometres from the Syrian army base that the media presumed it was fired from.

Postol and a colleague, Richard M. Lloyd, published an analysis two weeks after 21 August in which they correctly assessed that the rockets involved carried a far greater payload of sarin than previously estimated. The Times reported on that analysis at length, describing Postol and Lloyd as ‘leading weapons experts’. The pair’s later study about the rockets’ flight paths and range, which contradicted previous Times reporting, was emailed to the newspaper last week; it has so far gone unreported.

Though a UN resolution nullified the chances of American military intervention, the impact would be significant if the allegations hold up; recall that President George W. Bush's legacy was deeply tainted by charges that the U.S. had no proof of nuclear weapons in Iraq when they said they did. Hersh hints at the seriousness of the charges himself: "The cherry-picking was similar to the process used to justify the Iraq war."

http://news.yahoo.com/seymour-hersh-alleges-obama-administration-lied-syria-gas-204437397.html
 
Re: Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack


New analysis of rocket used in Syria
chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims



By Matthew Schofield

McClatchy Foreign StaffJanuary 15, 2014



BERLIN — A series of revelations about the rocket believed to have delivered poison sarin gas to a Damascus suburb last summer are challenging American intelligence assumptions about that attack and suggest that the case U.S. officials initially made for retaliatory military action was flawed.

A team of security and arms experts, meeting this week in Washington to discuss the matter, has concluded that the range of the rocket that delivered sarin in the largest attack that night was too short for the device to have been fired from the Syrian government positions where the Obama administration insists they originated.

Separately, international weapons experts are puzzling over why the rocket in question – an improvised 330mm to 350mm rocket equipped with a large receptacle on its nose to hold chemicals – reportedly did not appear in the Syrian government’s declaration of its arsenal to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and apparently was not uncovered by OPCW inspectors who believe they’ve destroyed Syria’s ability to deliver a chemical attack.

Neither development proves decisively that Syrian government forces did not fire the chemicals that killed hundreds of Syrians in the early morning hours of Aug. 21. U.S. officials continue to insist that the case for Syrian government responsibility for the attack in East Ghouta is stronger than any suggestion of rebel involvement, while experts say it is possible Syria left the rockets out of its chemical weapons declaration simply to make certain it could not be tied to the attack.

“That failure to declare can mean different things,” said Ralf Trapp, an original member of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and a former secretary of the group’s scientific advisory board. “It can mean the Syrian government doesn’t have them, or that they are hiding them.”

In Washington, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence said its assertion of Syrian government responsibility remains unchanged.

“The body of information used to make the assessment regarding the August 21 attack included intelligence pertaining to the regime’s preparations for this attack and its means of delivery, multiple streams of intelligence about the attack itself and its effect, our post-attack observations, and the differences between the capabilities of the regime and the opposition. That assessment made clear that the opposition had not used chemical weapons in Syria,” it said Wednesday in an email.

But the authors of a report released Wednesday said that their study of the rocket’s design, its likely payload and its possible trajectories show that it would have been impossible for the rocket to have been fired from inside areas controlled by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad.


U.S. analysis of Syrian chemical weapons attack is under fire[/n]

A new study suggests the U.S. intelligence assessments of the August 2013 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, Syria, were flawed. The study says the design of rocket used in the attack, its likely payload and its possible trajectories show that it would have been impossible for the rocket to have been fired from inside areas controlled by the Syrian government.

BaseMap.png


Missile.png



In the report, titled “Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” Richard Lloyd, a former United Nations weapons inspector, and Theodore Postol, a professor of science, technology and national security policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argue that the question about the rocket’s range indicates a major weakness in the case for military action initially pressed by Obama administration officials.

The administration eventually withdrew its request for congressional authorization for a military strike after Syria agreed to submit to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the weapons. Polls showed overwhelming public opposition to a military strike, however, and it was doubtful Congress would have authorized an attack.



Lloyd and Postol’s report is the most recent installment in a months-long debate among rocket and weapons experts, much of it carried out in detailed papers posted on the Internet, about the nature of the munitions used in the Aug. 21 attack on rebel-controlled suburbs of Damascus.

The report’s authors admit that they deal only with one area of the attacks, the eastern suburb of Zamalka, where the largest quantity of sarin was released that night. They acknowledge that smaller rockets likely used in areas southwest of the capital could have come from government-controlled territory.



Relying on mathematical projections about the likely force of the rocket and noting that its design – some have described it as a trash can on a stick – would have made it awkward in flight, Lloyd and Postol conclude that the rocket likely had a maximum range of 2 kilometers, or just more than 1.2 miles. That range, the report explains in detail, means the rockets could not have come from land controlled by the Syrian government.

To emphasize their point, the authors used a map produced by the White House that showed which areas were under government and rebel control on Aug. 21 and where the chemical weapons attack occurred. Drawing circles around Zamalka to show the range from which the rocket could have come, the authors conclude that all of the likely launching points were in rebel-held areas or areas that were in dispute. The area securely in government hands was miles from the possible launch zones.



In an interview, Postol said that a basic analysis of the weapon – some also have described as a looking like a push pop, a fat cylinder filled with sarin atop a thin stick that holds the engine – would have shown that it wasn’t capable of flying the 6 miles from the center of the Syrian government-controlled part of Damascus to the point of impact in the suburbs, or even the 3.6 miles from the edges of government-controlled ground.

He questioned whether U.S. intelligence officials had actually analyzed the improbability of a rocket with such a non-aerodynamic design traveling so far before Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Sept. 3 that “we are certain that none of the opposition has the weapons or capacity to effect a strike of this scale – particularly from the heart of regime territory.”

“I honestly have no idea what happened,” Postol said. “My view when I started this process was that it couldn’t be anything but the Syrian government behind the attack. But now I’m not sure of anything. The administration narrative was not even close to reality. Our intelligence cannot possibly be correct.”

Lloyd, who has spent the past half-year studying the weapons and capabilities in the Syrian conflict, disputed the assumption that the rebels are less capable of making rockets than the Syrian military.

“The Syrian rebels most definitely have the ability to make these weapons,” he said. “I think they might have more ability than the Syrian government.”

Both said they were not making a case that the rebels were behind the attack, just that a case for military action was made without even a basic understanding of what might have happened.

For instance, they said that Kerry’s insistence that U.S. satellite images had shown the impact points of the chemical weapons was unlikely to be true. The charges that detonate chemical weapons are generally so small, they said, that their detonations would not be visible in a satellite image.

The report also raised whether the Obama administration misused intelligence information in a way similar to the administration of President George W. Bush in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Then, U.S. officials insisted that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had an active program to develop weapons of mass destruction. Subsequent inspections turned up no such program or weapons.

“What, exactly, are we spending all this money on intelligence for?” Postol asked.

As for the failure of the Syrians to list the rocket in its chemical weapons inventory, experts are undecided on what it means and leery about discussing it in public.

A spokeswoman for the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in Damascus declined to comment on what was listed in the declaration. It would violate the Chemical Weapons Convention for anyone who has read the declaration – it’s distributed to all nations that have joined the treaty – to reveal its contents.

But knowledgeable experts said they have been leery to discuss the apparent omission because they don’t want to say anything that would disrupt what appears to have been the successful dismantling of Syria’s chemical weapons program.

Some say they are worried that the failure to declare one delivery system may also mean that other items went undeclared.

“The most likely explanation for some of the delivery systems not showing up on the chemical declaration is that Assad doesn’t want to incriminate himself or his regime,” said Daryl Kimball, a former U.S. official who is the executive director of the Arms Control Association.

Jonathan S. Landay in Damascus, Syria, and Hannah Allam and Anita Kumar in Washington contributed to this report.

Email: mschofield@mcclatchydc.com;




Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/01/15/214656/new-analysis-of-rocket-used-in.html#storylink=cpy






 
Back
Top