Obama looking sombre and grave as he prepares to drop bombs over Damascus. Photo Source: AP Photo/Evan Vucci. Cheer up, Obama. We're all mortals.
An Epic Disaster In The Making: A Round-Up of Articles About Obama's Upcoming War On Syria.
"Release of the long-awaited US government intelligence dossier on the alleged chemical attack in Syria on Aug. 21, had been moved and postponed until the media black-hole of a Friday afternoon before a big US holiday weekend.
Now we see why.
Here is the crux of the White House argument for war on Syria:
A chemical attack took place. Trust us. Someone (the Israelis) told us they tapped a call where two Syrian government officials talked about the attack in an incriminating way. Trust us. The Syrian government was moving troops around in a way that suggested they were about to launch a chemical attack. Trust us. More than 1,400 people were killed even though at most a couple of dozen were seen in the videos that purported to be of the attack. Never mind, trust us. We watched a lot of YouTube videos of people who seemed to be suffering from a chemical weapons attack. Trust us." - Daniel McAdams, "Obama's Syria Dossier: 'Trust Us'," Ron Paul Institute, August 30, 2013.
"Barack W. Bush. Joe Cheney. Here they come. Girded for a war that the British took one look at and bailed out on before it even began. Announcing that they are prepared to go it alone. Who said that unilateralism went away with George W. Bush?
Obama said acting unilaterally was a bad thing when he campaigned for office in 2008. That was then. Obama, who has followed in Bush's footsteps on national security surveillance measures, as the Washington Post's extensive revelations about the reach of government spy agencies show today, is about to go to war again." - Jacob Heilbrunn, "Barack W. Bush: Unilateral War In Syria," The National Interest, August 30, 2013.
"Two years ago, Obama declared that Assad “must go,” eviscerating prospects for a political settlement. Obama further damaged diplomatic prospects with three UN Security Council resolutions effectively authorizing coercive regime change in Damascus, which Russia and China vetoed. His Syria strategy rested on the surreal proposition that a staggeringly fractious “opposition,” much of which publicly aligns with al-Qa’ida and is not supported by anything close to a majority of Syrians, would unseat Assad, who (according to polls and other evidence) enjoys support from at least half of Syrian society.
Obama compounded all this with an equally foolish declaration that chemical weapons use was a U.S. “red line”—giving those looking for U.S. intervention motive to gas innocent civilians. Now that such weapons have been used, Obama cannot entertain that oppositionists may be responsible, for this would undercut his Syria strategy. His administration has presented no evidence that Assad’s forces used chemical weapons in Ghouta; when it alleged chemical weapons use at Khan al-Assal in March, it also offered no evidence of government responsibility. By contrast, Russia publicly presented a detailed forensic analysis showing that neither the munitions used at Khan al-Assal nor the chemical agent in them had been industrially manufactured and that, “therefore, there is every reason to believe that it was the armed opposition fighters who used the chemical weapons.” Washington rejected this—and, after trying to derail a UN investigation of more recent allegations about Ghouta, has preemptively dismissed whatever UN inspectors there now may conclude." - Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, "Syria and the Waning of American Hegemony," GoingToTehran, August 30, 2013.
"Essentially then, the United States is using social media, a
system over which they have control, to justify their pre-fabricated war
narrative. Additionally, the idea that videos
constitute a shred of evidence is laughable.
As any investigator can tell you, videos are easily manipulated and,
even if they are untouched, they cannot be used to assess the culprit of a
crime. Videos merely show what is
visible, not the underlying motives, means, and opportunity – all part of genuine
investigation.
Finally, one must feel serious apprehension at the idea of
journalist reports as being part of this pastiche called a “high confidence
assessment,” for the simple reason that Western coverage of the conflict in
Syria is mostly coming from journalists outside the country or those already
sympathetic to the rebel cause. Whether
they are paid propagandists or simply convenient tools used as mouthpieces of
the corporate media, their reports are highly suspect, and certainly should
have no role in shaping war-making policy." - Eric Draitser, Debunking the "U.S. Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013," Land Destroyer Report, August 30, 2013.
"No matter how “limited” the strike, bombing a foreign nation is a major act of war. In fact, after WWII the Nuremberg trial concluded that the Nazis’ “supreme international crime” was not genocide or holocaust, but waging aggressive war, since all other war crimes were spawned from this original sin. Of course, Obama’s aggressive war plans involve more than tossing a couple of missiles at some Syrian tanks. That is why he’s moved five Navy destroyers into the region.
It is also presumably why — as reported by the French daily Le Figaro — hundreds U.S. Special Forces and “trained militant fighters” entered Syria on August 17.
It has widely been speculated that the real intention of attacking Syria is to prop up Obama’s ailing rebels, who have received massive U.S. support in the form of guns, training, and money, for —according to The New York Times — almost two years now, and possibly longer. It’s an undisputed fact that Islamic extremists militias are the most powerful fighting forces in the opposition to Assad; if he falls then they will be in power." - Shamus Cooke, "The Lie of “Limited” War Against Syria," Global Research, August 31, 2013.
