rigorousintuition.ca

09.03.13 - 2:03 PM
Being AIPAC's Bitch: NYT Reconsiders, Removes Mention of the 800-Pound Gorilla That Wants A War
by Abby Zimet


In a revealing catch, MJ Rosenberg finds the New York Times deleting

New York Times Deletes This Paragraph In Which White House Says AIPAC Is Key To War

3
SEP
This was in the New York Times last night:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

It was originally in this story. Now it’s gone. Its only remnant is in the Times search engine. If you put in “gorilla,” it points you to this story. But the gorilla ain’t there.

Obviously the White House and/or AIPAC did not want to be caught saying that the reason we are attacking Syria is to show AIPAC, the “800 pound gorilla,” that we are serious about the war the lobby really craves: Iran.

But there it is. Or was.

AIPAC censorship even applies to the Times. Only in America (not Israel, where AIPAC’s power does not extend to Haaretz).

a reference to White House strategists on Syria having to consider the “800-pound gorilla in the room” that is the powerful Israel lobbying group AIPAC, which is pushing a strike so the US will stay in the war game if and when Iran poses a threat - a newly bogus reason if ever there was one, he notes, to start a war. More on how the Times explains

‘NYT’ deletes references to AIPAC’s role in pushing strike on Syria
Phil Weiss with Max Blumenthal and Annie Robbins on September 3, 2013
Last night MJ Rosenberg posted an excerpt from a New York Times article published yesterday about the White House’s efforts to convince Congress of the wisdom of a strike on Syria. The excerpt said the Israel lobby group AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) was pushing a strike so that the US would also stand up to Iran, and it quoted a White House official calling AIPAC the “800-pound gorilla in the room.”

Here’s the excerpt:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called Aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

Last night both Annie Robbins and Max Blumenthal followed Rosenberg’s link to the Times article, and noted that it had been changed. Robbins tweeted at 9 PM:

@MJayRosenberg @nytimes cut #aipac “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” quote from article. no mention of aipac. they are ‘silent’!

Blumenthal sent out an email: “I am unable to find it anywhere on the Times’ website. What happened, and why has the New York Times not acknowledged replacing one article with another one in a matter of hours?”

MJ Rosenberg then did a post on the deletion.

This UK site shows 11 revisions of the Times article. Between Version 5 and 6, it lost the 800-pound gorilla and AIPAC’s role in pushing an attack on Syria.

Blumenthal asks, “I have never witnessed anything like this before. Is it standard practice for online New York Times reports to be scrubbed from existence and replaced with revised, updated articles containing different content? And if so, why was the replacement not acknowledged somewhere in the text of the article?”

The Times’s Robert Mackey has defended the deletion. On twitter, he says that many articles morph on the Times website in the internet age. He points readers to the original version of the article, on the Times website. Titled “President Seeks to Rally Support for Syria Strike,” it is bylined Michael Gordon and Jackie Calmes and includes the 800-pound gorilla quote and the direct reference to AIPAC’s push for war.

The article as revised has lost that quote and the description of AIPAC’s role. Now titled, “President Gains McCain’s Backing on Syria Strike,” this article is bylined Calmes, Gordon and Eric Schmitt.

Mackey says that the Times is being transparent. Here’s some of his dialogue with Yousef Munayyer and Ali Gharib

Gharib: this is a not insignificant detail, by the article’s own lights.

Mackey: I am nor debating that point, just explaining fact that most articles now morph on site every day..

Mackey: what confuses people is how site posts drafts of articles that morph from one day’s paper to next

Munayyer: Robert do you see why that edit raises eyebrows?

Mackey: you seem to discount transparency of the news organization now sharing early drafts online

Munayyer: LOL The @nytimes finds and then manages to misplace the 800lb gorilla in the room

Update: The Times sent the following email to Politico early this afternoon. Not sure it clarifies. From Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha:

We regularly edit web stories for the print paper. This particular change was made to avoid repeating the same thought which ran in a page one story on Monday. That article entitled, “President Seeks to Rally Support for Syria Strike” included the following:

“One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Political Affairs Committee “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, ‘If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line’ — against catastrophic use of chemical weapons — ‘we’re in trouble.’”

Update: Ali Gharib has also reported on the matter, with more of the sequence on the removal of the offending language, and a note that an 800-pound gorilla operates by its own rules.

AIPAC Activism On Syria Disappears From New York Times
by Ali Gharib Sep 3, 2013 1:30 PM EDT

Yesterday in these pages, Brent Sasley ran down some of the chatter around the position of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (or, as Sasley aptly said, lack thereof) on a Congressional vote about whether or not to strike Syria. Sasley relayed a quote from an administration official to the New York Times, where the official called AIPAC "the 800-pound gorilla in the room," underscoring AIPAC's influence and potential importance to the Syria vote.

Later Monday, the TImes updated the article with a paraphrased statement from an administration official to the effect that AIPAC had become active on the issue. It read like this:

Administration officials said the influential pro-Israel lobby group Aipac was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Mr. Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel.


The New York Times logo is seen on the headquarters building on April 21, 2011 in New York City. (Ramin Talaie / Getty Images)

Today, that reference has been removed from the piece, by Jackie Calmes, Michael Gordon and Eric Schmitt, with several others contributing. The latest iteration online doesn't even contain the quote about the "gorilla," though the simian reference lives on at a separate link in a version of the article that apparently appeared in the print edition today. I drew the now-entirely-missing line from the left-wing writer M.J. Rosenberg, the first person I saw to notice it'd gone missing. (You can examine some of the changed versions of the stories here, here, and here.)

What's going on? The Times blogger Robert Mackey explained on Twitter, "What confuses people is how site posts drafts of articles that morph from one day's paper to next." That's true: the Times posts early drafts of its stories online as soon as possible—today's news environment demands it—and updates them as time progresses. The headlines often change, as do the bodies of pieces. There are a host of reasons for doing this. Developments may require it, and other material may need to be cut for space. Editing for space can also come into consideration when an article gets pared down from its online form for the print edition. Earlier reporting will indeed sometimes disappear without a notice, for perfectly understandable reasons. Errors of fact, however, in early versions of articles still deserve explicit corrections, a standard I believe the Times keeps.

But those explanations leave something to be desired in the case of this Times reporting. The problem is that the line about AIPAC's activism is not an extraneous assertion; indeed, according to the Times's own reporting in the piece, the fact of AIPAC's involvement on the Hill was a significant factor. That's why the Times quoted an administration official calling the group an "800-pound gorilla," a phrase that "usually refers to someone or something so large and powerful that it lives by its own set of rules." That perhaps overstates it, but AIPAC is a tremendously influential Washington lobby group, so much so that one of its activists once bragged to the New Yorker that AIPAC "could have the signatures of seventy senators" on a blank napkin within 24 hours.

It's odd that it was AIPAC's nascent activism on the Syria congressional vote which got removed from the article, while the "gorilla" quote lives on (in at least one version). The latter constitutes largely good color, describing a general phenomenon, whereas AIPAC's actual activities—as a powerful interest group in Washington—bear directly on what happens on Capitol Hill. Perhaps the administration official was incorrect, and AIPAC had not begun lobbying the Hill on the question of Syria strikes, and so the remark was removed. But if that's the case, the Times should have issued a correction on that point.

I hope Margaret Sullivan, the Times's excellent and thoughtful public editor, takes this matter up and clears the air. The powerful pro-Israel group has often operated with a modus operandi described by the aforementioned AIPAC activist in the New Yorker piece: "A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.” The role of journalism is not to kill special interest groups, but it is to shine a light on their activities—whatever the effect may be—especially as those activities bear on matters as grave as war and peace.

omitting this key fact, though it made the Boston Globe. And while the bombs are falling on Syria, where will Israel's U.S. supporters be? At AIPAC's National Summit, their "exclusive annual gathering...in California Wine Country."

Published on Wednesday, September 4, 2013 by The Nation
Attack Syria? 'Nobody Wants This Except the Military-Industrial Complex'
by John Nichols

President Obama, flanked by House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, left, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., speaks to media in the Cabinet Room of the White House in Washington before a meeting with members of Congress to discuss the situation in Syria. (Press: Associated Press)
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, backs President Obama’s request for authorization to intervene militarily in Syria, as does House Democratic Minority Nancy Pelosi, D-California.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, is similarly “in,” while Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, in mum.

The president has done a pretty good job of selling his plan to congressional leaders.

He has not, however, sold it to the American people.

Thus, when members of Congress decide which side they're on in the Syrian intervention votes that are expected to take place next week, they will have to consider whether they want to respond to pro-war pressure from inside-the-Beltway – as so many did when they authorized action against Iraq – or to the anti-war sentiments of their constituents.

Reflecting on the proposed intervention, Congressman Alan Grayson, D-Florida, allowed as how: "Nobody wants this except the military-industrial complex.”

The level of opposition might not be quite so overwhelming.

But it is strikingly high.

And, even as the president makes his case, skepticism about intervention appears to be growing.

A Pew Research survey released Tuesday found support for air strikes had collapsed from 45 percent to 29 percent, while opposition had spiked. “The public has long been skeptical of U.S. involvement in Syria, but an April survey found more support than opposition to the idea of a U.S.-led military response if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed,” Pew reported Tuesday. “The new survey finds both broad concern over the possible consequences of military action in Syria and little optimism it will be effective.”

The latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, released after the president announced he would seek congressional authorization for an attack on Syria, and after several days of administration lobbying for that attack, found that voters are overwhelmingly opposed to intervention.

“The United States says it has determined that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons in the civil war there,” the Post/ABC poll asked. “Given this, do you support or oppose the United States launching missile strikes against the Syrian government?”

Sixty percent of registered voters (59 percent of all respondents) express opposition. Just 36 percent support intervention.

Self-identified Democrats are opposed 54-42 – a 12 point gap.

Republicans are opposed 55-43 – a similar 12 point gap.

The fiercest opposition is among independents, who disapprove of intervention by a 66-30 margin. That figure suggests that members of Congress who represent swing districts might actually be more vulnerable if they vote to authorize the attack.

In addition to being broad-based, the opposition sentiment runs deep. Even if US allies such as Britain and France join in, a 51-46 majority is still opposed to missile strikes.

The idea of going further and trying to topple the Syrian regime appears to be a political non-starter. Seventy percent of those surveyed oppose supplying weapons to the Syrian rebels, while just 30 percent support the proposal that has been floated by President Obama and Republican hawks such as Arizona Senator John McCain.

What is especially notable about the polling data is the intensity of opposition to any sort of intervention – including missile strikes targeted at suspected chemical weapons sites – among groups that lean Democratic at election time.

Sixty-five percent of women surveyed for The Post/ABC poll oppose missile strikes, while just 30 percent favor them. (The Pew survey found an even lower level of support among women: just 19 percent)

Among Americans under age 40 who were surveyed for the Post/ABC poll, 65 percent are opposed.

Among Hispanics, 63 percent are opposed.

Among African-Americans, 56 percent are opposed.

On the question of arming the rebels, opposition numbers skyrocket.

Seventy-six percent of women surveyed for the Post/ABC poll are opposed.

Seventy-four percent of those under age 40 are opposed.

Seventy-three percent of African-Americans are opposed.

Regionally, the Democratic-leaning states of the Midwest and the Northeast are more opposed than the Republican-leaning states of the South.

It is true that foreign policy is not always made on the basis of polling data. It is true that patterns of war weariness and concern about how to address the use of chemical weapons makes the current circumstance volatile. And it is true that poll numbers can change. But it is worth noting that discomfort with launching air strikes -- let alone any other intervention -- is running strong among voters who have followed the story closely and among voters who have only recently begun to engage with it. Pew reports that "opposition to the idea is prevalent regardless of people’s level of interest – nearly half oppose airstrikes among the most and least attentive segments of the public."

Or, as The Washington Post analysis puts it: "there is deep opposition among every political and demographic group in the survey."

[urlhttp://calvinayre.com/2013/09/04/poker/john-mccain-plays-online-poker-loses-ipoker-skins-go-mobile/]JOHN MCCAIN PLAYS ONLINE POKER, LOSES; IPOKER SKINS GO MOBILE; 888 INK JC TRAN[/url]

SEPTEMBER 4, 2013

TinyCo inc., the makers of the VIP Poker play-money app for iOS, got some major unexpected exposure on Tuesday as the Washington Post snapped a photo (at right) of Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) playing the app on his iPhone. Post photographer Melina Mara took the snap during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on whether or not the United States intends to take military action against Syria over that country’s alleged use of sarin gas against the insurgents trying to bring down the Assad regime. McCain, a known craps player who favours military intervention in Syria, fessed up to his diversionary activities by tweeting the following: “Scandal! Caught playing iPhone game at 3+ hour Senate hearing – worst of all I lost!”

9/3/13 Philip Giraldi

Philip Giraldi, executive director of The Council for the National Interest, discusses Gareth Porter’s debunking of US “intelligence” supporting an attack on Syria; reports that the Syrian rebels accidentally set off deadly chemical weapons from the Saudis; why Secretary of State John Kerry can’t possibly know the casualty figures in Syria – no matter how confidently he states them; and AIPAC’s full-court press on Congress to get another war started in the Middle East.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 30:36 — 7.0MB)
http://dissentradio.com/radio/13_09_03_giraldi.mp3

http://scotthorton.org/2013/09/03/9313-philip-giraldi/

elfismiles » 03 Sep 2013 21:08 wrote:

How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria
Tuesday, 03 September 2013 09:05 By Gareth Porter, Truthout | News
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/1855 ... k-on-syria

All Scrubbed Up, Nowhere to Show
September 4, 2013
Exclusive: Two weeks after an apparent chemical attack in Syria, the Obama administration continues to tout its “scrubbed and rescrubbed” intelligence as proving that the Syrian government is to blame. But not a single piece of verifiable evidence has been presented to the American people, notes Robert Parry.


By Robert Parry

Secretary of State John Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the U.S. “intelligence community has scrubbed and rescrubbed the evidence” proving that the Syrian government launched a poison gas attack on Aug. 21, but this supposedly spotless data is still being withheld from the American people.

So, just a little more than a decade after President George W. Bush misled the nation into a disastrous war in Iraq, President Barack Obama and his team are trying to sell a new war with Syria by presenting even fewer details.

Members of Congress also are reprising their roles from 2002-2003, displaying almost no skepticism as they get “classified” glimpses of this well-scrubbed intelligence. And, the mainstream press has slid into the same careless acceptance of U.S. government proclamations as fact, just as it did a decade ago.

For instance, the New York Times star columnist Thomas L. Friedman, who swallowed the Iraq War lies whole, is gorging himself again on whatever the U.S. government is dishing up on Syria. “Count me with the activists on the question of whether the United States should respond to the Syrian regime’s murder of some 1,400 civilians, more than 400 of them children, with poison gas,” Friedman wrote on Wednesday.

Note his complete lack of sourcing or ambivalence, though every point in his declarative sentence is in doubt, including the numbers of victims. British intelligence cites a figure of “at least 350” while U.S. intelligence provides the strangely precise number of “1,429,” but without offering any public explanation of how that total was reached.

After the Iraq War fiasco, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis (although, in that case, the U.S. government never did a serious body count), I wrote a number of articles calling for accountability not only for government officials who authorized the illegal war but for journalists who failed to protect the American people from government lies.

However, the conventional wisdom then was that it would be unfair to fire or demote journalists who ran with the pack. After all, they were simply doing what almost everyone else was doing – and it was impractical to purge the swollen ranks of implicated journalists, from senior editors to big-name columnists to beat reporters.

So, with very few exceptions, there was no accountability in the national press as there was next to none within the U.S. government (except for some whistleblowers who exposed government wrongdoing). This failure of fairness and justice created the danger that when the next Middle East crisis arose, the American people would be guided by many of the same politicians who messed up Iraq – and would be informed by the same journalists.

Thus, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday, you had most of the testimony coming from two politicians – Secretary of State Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel – who as senators in 2002 voted for Bush’s Iraq War resolution. And you had the likes to Thomas Friedman and the Washington Post’s neocon opinion section again beating the drums for war, either by arming the Syrian rebels or through direct intervention by the U.S. military.

Forgotten Lesson

Though some of the Iraq War hawks in the press and politics later admitted they were duped by Bush’s certitude regarding Iraq’s WMD stockpiles – and they shouldn’t have stated the WMD’s existence as “flat fact” – they have quickly forgotten that lesson a decade later with Syria.

Instead of demanding that the Obama administration present its intelligence information in detail, the usual suspects have simply fallen back into the pattern of accepting disputed U.S. evidence as undeniable. Friedman almost swaggers rhetorically as he dares anyone to doubt the U.S. government’s case this time.

Similarly, Kerry is emboldened to embroider the U.S. government’s claims without supplying any checkable details. In his Senate testimony on Tuesday, Kerry declared that the “Assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instructions to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks.” He added that the U.S. intelligence included “physical evidence of where the rockets came from and when.”

Previously, Kerry had claimed that a phone intercept of a senior Syrian official caught him admitting that the Assad regime had carried out the attack. But a three-page white paper issued last Friday contained not a single independently verifiable piece of evidence. For instance, the “senior official” was left unnamed and his words were only paraphrased. There were no direct quotes, no transcript, no full context.

It’s also unclear how the United States knows about the Assad regime’s pre-attack preparations and the location of the missile launches. If the U.S. possesses satellite photographs or other physical evidence, none has been revealed publicly.

Though some credulous Congress people have emerged from the “classified” briefings deeply impressed by the intelligence community’s presentations, a few were underwhelmed. “Yes, I saw the classified documents,” Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told The Hill newspaper. “They were pretty thin.”

One also might assume that if the intelligence were truly a “slam dunk,” the Obama administration would have figured out ways of highlighting the evidence. The fact that all the details are being kept from the American people should be regarded as a prima facie case for believing that Rep. Burgess is right.

There is an old journalistic adage, “show, don’t tell.” But the Obama administration is doing the opposite, “tell, don’t show.” One has to wonder why – if the evidence has been so “scrubbed and rescrubbed” – Secretary Kerry doesn’t want to dress it up and put it on display for the world to see.

Russia releases key findings on chemical attack near Aleppo indicating similarity with rebel-made weapons
Published time: September 04, 2013 17:02
Edited time: September 04, 2013 19:00 Get short URL
People injured in what the government said was a chemical weapons attack, breathe through oxygen masks as they are treated at a hospital in the Syrian city of Aleppo March 19, 2013 (Reuters / George Ourfalian)

Probes from Khan al-Assal show chemicals used in the March 19 attack did not belong to standard Syrian army ammunition, and that the shell carrying the substance was similar to those made by a rebel fighter group, the Russian Foreign Ministry stated.

RT's LIVE UPDATES on Syrian 'chemical weapons' crisis

A statement released by the ministry on Wednesday particularly drew attention to the “massive stove-piping of various information aimed at placing the responsibility for the alleged chemical weapons use in Syria on Damascus, even though the results of the UN investigation have not yet been revealed.”

By such means “the way is being paved for military action” against Damascus, the ministry pointed out.

But the samples taken at the site of the March 19 attack and analyzed by Russian experts indicate that a projectile carrying the deadly nerve agent sarin was most likely fired at Khan al-Assal by the rebels, the ministry statement suggests, outlining the 100-page report handed over to the UN by Russia.

The key points of the report have been given as follows:

• the shell used in the incident “does not belong to the standard ammunition of the Syrian army and was crudely according to type and parameters of the rocket-propelled unguided missiles manufactured in the north of Syria by the so-called Bashair al-Nasr brigade”;

• RDX, which is also known as hexogen or cyclonite, was used as the bursting charge for the shell, and it is “not used in standard chemical munitions”;

• soil and shell samples contain “the non-industrially synthesized nerve agent sarin and diisopropylfluorophosphate,” which was “used by Western states for producing chemical weapons during World War II.”

The findings of the report are “extremely specific,” as they mostly consist of scientific and technical data from probes’ analysis, the ministry stressed, adding that this data can “substantially aid” the UN investigation of the incident.

While focusing on the Khan al-Assal attack on March 19, in which at least 26 civilians and Syrian army soldiers were killed, and 86 more were injured, the Russian Foreign Ministry also criticized the “flawed selective approach” of certain states in reporting the recent incidents of alleged chemical weapons use in August.

The hype around the alleged attack on the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta showed “apparent attempts to cast a veil over the incidents of gas poisoning of Syrian army soldiers on August 22, 24 and 25,” the ministry said, adding that all the respective evidence was handed to the UN by Syria.

The condition of the soldiers who, according to Damascus, suffered poisoning after discovering tanks with traces of sarin, has been examined and documented by the UN inspectors, the ministry pointed out, adding that “any objective investigation of the August 21 incident in eastern Ghouta is impossible without the consideration of all these facts.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Tuesday said the UN investigators are set to return to Syria to investigate several other cases of alleged chemical weapons use, including the March 19 incident in Khan al-Assal.

What's the evidence of Syrian chemical weapons attack?
By Josh Levs, CNN
September 4, 2013 -- Updated 1949 GMT (0349 HKT)
A Free Syrian Army fighter looks through a hole from behind sandbags, while a fellow fighter reads the Quran in Deir Ezzor, Syria, on Tuesday, September 3. The United States and other Western nations blame the Assad regime for a chemical weapons attack that's believed to have killed more than 1,400 people. Tensions in Syria began to flare in March 2011 and escalated into an ongoing civil war. Click through to view the most compelling images taken since the start of the conflict:

(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry calls it proof "beyond any reasonable doubt." Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel says it's "very clear."
President Barack Obama says the United States has "high confidence" that Syria used chemical weapons -- the strongest position the U.S. can take short of confirmation.
Britain, France, and Germany say their intelligence backs up the same conclusion.
But despite all the talk about conclusive intelligence, questions remain. A declassified report by the White House does not divulge all details of the evidence the United States is looking at. And it remains unclear what the "streams of intelligence" cited in the report may be and how they were collected.
Russia insists there's no proof. Russian President Vladimir Putin said he wants to see evidence that would make the determination "obvious."
Syria: Searching for solutions Kerry: Riskier to not act against Syria Hagel: 'U.S. forces ready to act'
And Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime says rebel forces were behind any chemical weapons attack.
The United Nations, meanwhile, is calling on world leaders to wait for the results of a U.N. probe.
Here's a look at what is known about the intelligence Washington points to.
Kerry cites 'concrete' evidence
"We have declassified unprecedented amounts of information, and we ask the American people and the rest of the world to judge that information," Kerry told lawmakers Tuesday.
It "proves the Assad regime prepared for this attack, issued instruction to prepare for this attack, warned its own forces to use gas masks."
Physical, "concrete" evidence shows where the rockets came from, when they were fired, and that not one landed in regime-controlled territory, Kerry said.
"Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21," the White House says in the declassified report.
"Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred. ... The lack of flight activity or missile launches also leads us to conclude that the regime used rockets in the attack."
The White House released a map along with the report.
But the prospect of more details on the evidence seems dim as Kerry said the amount already declassified "could possibly put at risk some sources and methods," and that releasing more could "tempt fate."
U.S.: Opposition doesn't have 'the capacity'
"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," Kerry told lawmakers Tuesday.
Kerry: Assad behind 'outrageous attack' Senator: 'Embarrassed' on Syria reaction Syria crisis 'is not our problem'
The White House report points to Syria's known stockpiles of chemical agents. And it says the United States assesses "with high confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year, including in the Damascus suburbs. This assessment is based on multiple streams of information including reporting of Syrian officials planning and executing chemical weapons attacks and laboratory analysis of physiological samples obtained from a number of individuals, which revealed exposure to sarin.
"We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons."
In May, a U.N. official said there were strong suspicions that Syrian rebel forces had used sarin gas. But the findings were not conclusive, the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry for Syria said at the time, and the opposition Syrian Coalition condemned any use of chemical weapons. The U.S. State Department said at the time it had no evidence suggesting rebels had used chemical weapons.
The Russian Foreign Ministry said Wednesday the results of an investigation into a March attack in Aleppo, apparently using chemical weapons, found that the charge used was homemade and similar to projectiles produced by the group Bashaar al-Nasr, part of the opposition Syrian Islamic Liberation Front. Sarin was discovered in samples from the scene, the foreign ministry said.
Bashaar al-Nasr has slammed Syria for the recent chemical weapons attack in Damascus, and vowed revenge.
U.S.: Syria prepared
"In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack," the U.S. report says.
"Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of 'Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin. On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons."
'Intercepted communications'
"We have a body of information, including past Syrian practice, that leads us to conclude that regime officials were witting of and directed the attack on August 21," the U.S. report says. "We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence."
Intelligence shows Syrian chemical weapons personnel were told to cease operations in the afternoon of August 21, and that the regime then "intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred," the report says.
Analyst: 'No way in hell' U.S. can back up death toll
The U.S. report says a preliminary assessment "determined that 1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children."
The assessment "will certainly evolve as we obtain more information," it adds.
"Secretary Kerry seems to have been sandbagged into using an absurdly over-precise number," said Anthony Cordesman, former director of intelligence assessment at the U.S. Defense Department.
Now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, he writes on the CSIS website, "Put simply, there is no way in hell the U.S. intelligence community could credibly have made an estimate this exact."
It's unclear whether "these figures really had an intelligence source," Cordesman said . "Some sources indicate they may have actually come from a Syrian source called the Local Coordination Committees (LCC)" -- a Syrian opposition group.
Analysis: Israel role in Syria debate Assad dynasty began with coup Representatives debate action in Syria
A U.S. official told CNN the number is not based on opposition figures. The methodology used to come up with the toll remains classified.
Rebel leaders have given similar estimates for the death toll, saying more than 1,300 people were killed.
Britain's Joint Intelligence Organization, meanwhile, says at least 350 people were killed. It does not say how the figure was determined.
A French government report notes that body counts by several sources, including Doctors Without Borders, estimated at least 355 deaths. "Other technical counts, using different sources, estimate the toll to be around 1,500 deaths," the report says.
Britain, France, Germany weigh in
A letter from Jon Day, chairman of Britain's Joint Intelligence Committee, to British Prime Minister David Cameron, also rejects suggestions that the opposition may have been behind the attack.
"We have tested this assertion using a wide range of intelligence and open sources, and invited (the government) and outside experts to help us establish whether such a thing is possible," Day wrote.
No "credible intelligence" suggests the opposition has chemical weapons, he writes, adding that "there are no plausible alternative scenarios to regime responsibility."
"We also have a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgment that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the opposition from strategic parts of Damascus. Some of this intelligence is highly sensitive but you have had access to it all."
France gives a similar argument.
"The attack of August 21st could only have been ordered and carried out by the regime," its declassified intelligence report says.
Germany's foreign intelligence agency, the BND, has the same assessment.
"In a secret briefing to select lawmakers on Monday, BND head Gerhard Schindler said that while there is still no incontestable proof, analysis of the evidence at hand has led his intelligence service to believe that Assad's regime is to blame," Der Spiegel reports.
U.N. probe: Limited scope, no clear deadline
The United Nations is pushing all nations to hold off on any action until results of its own examination are in. It's unclear how soon that may be.
"The U.N. mission is uniquely capable of establishing in an impartial and credible manner the facts of any use of chemical weapons," Martin Nesirky, spokesman for Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, said repeatedly at a news conference Sunday.
But the U.N. probe's mandate is only to determine whether chemical weapons were used -- not by whom.
Obama argued Wednesday that that's no longer in question. "Frankly, nobody is really disputing that chemical weapons were used," he said.
Russia - which, along with China, would likely block any U.N. resolution authorizing military action in Syria -- has repeatedly thrown cold water on suggestions that there's proof of Syria culpability.
"If there are data that the chemical weapons have been used, and used specifically by the regular army, this evidence should be submitted to the U.N. Security Council," Putin said Wednesday in an interview with The Associated Press and Russia's state Channel 1 television.
"It should be a deep and specific probe containing evidence that would be obvious and prove beyond doubt who did it and what means were used."
If there was such evidence, Russia might support a resolution authorizing military strikes, Putin said.
Syria: Allegations 'false and unfounded'
Syria still insists it never used chemical weapons.
"These allegations are false and unfounded," Syria's U.N. Ambassador Bashar al-Ja'afari said Tuesday in an interview with CNN.
He cited the confidence that the United States said it had a decade ago when it argued that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
It's an argument Kerry was prepared for before Congress on Tuesday.
He noted that he and Hagel were senators at the time of the Iraq vote.
"And so we are especially sensitive, Chuck and I, to never again asking any member of Congress to take a vote on faulty intelligence. And that is why our intelligence community has scrubbed and re-scrubbed the evidence."

Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines


U.N. chemical weapons experts visit people affected by an apparent gas attack, at a hospital in the southwestern Damascus suburb of Mouadamiya. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters

On 21 August, hundreds - perhaps over a thousand - people were killed in a chemical weapon attack in Ghouta, Damascus, prompting the US, UK, Israel and France to raise the spectre of military strikes against Bashir al Assad's forces.

The latest episode is merely one more horrific event in a conflict that has increasingly taken on genocidal characteristics. The case for action at first glance is indisputable. The UN now confirms a death toll over 100,000 people, the vast majority of whom have been killed by Assad's troops. An estimated 4.5 million people have been displaced from their homes. International observers have overwhelmingly confirmed Assad's complicity in the preponderance of war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Syrian people. The illegitimacy of his regime, and the legitimacy of the uprising, is clear.

Experts are unanimous that the shocking footage of civilians, including children, suffering the effects of some sort of chemical attack, is real - but remain divided on whether it involved military-grade chemical weapons associated with Assad's arsenal, or were a more amateur concoction potentially linked to the rebels.

Whatever the case, few recall that US agitation against Syria began long before recent atrocities, in the context of wider operations targeting Iranian influence across the Middle East.

In May 2007, a presidential finding revealed that Bush had authorised CIA operations against Iran. Anti-Syria operations were also in full swing around this time as part of this covert programme, according to Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. A range of US government and intelligence sources told him that the Bush administration had "cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations" intended to weaken the Shi'ite Hezbollah in Lebanon. "The US has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria," wrote Hersh, "a byproduct" of which is "the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups" hostile to the United States and "sympathetic to al-Qaeda." He noted that "the Saudi government, with Washington's approval, would provide funds and logistical aid to weaken the government of President Bashir Assad, of Syria," with a view to pressure him to be "more conciliatory and open to negotiations" with Israel. One faction receiving covert US "political and financial support" through the Saudis was the exiled Syrian Muslim Brotherhood.

According to former French foreign minister Roland Dumas, Britain had planned covert action in Syria as early as 2009: "I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business", he told French television:

"I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria. This was in Britain not in America. Britain was preparing gunmen to invade Syria."

The 2011 uprisings, it would seem - triggered by a confluence of domestic energy shortages and climate-induced droughts which led to massive food price hikes - came at an opportune moment that was quickly exploited. Leaked emails from the private intelligence firm Stratfor including notes from a meeting with Pentagon officials confirmed US-UK training of Syrian opposition forces since 2011 aimed at eliciting "collapse" of Assad's regime "from within."

So what was this unfolding strategy to undermine Syria and Iran all about? According to retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

Much of the strategy currently at play was candidly described in a 2008 US Army-funded RAND report, Unfolding the Future of the Long War (pdf). The report noted that "the economies of the industrialized states will continue to rely heavily on oil, thus making it a strategically important resource." As most oil will be produced in the Middle East, the US has "motive for maintaining stability in and good relations with Middle Eastern states":

"The geographic area of proven oil reserves coincides with the power base of much of the Salafi-jihadist network. This creates a linkage between oil supplies and the long war that is not easily broken or simply characterized... For the foreseeable future, world oil production growth and total output will be dominated by Persian Gulf resources... The region will therefore remain a strategic priority, and this priority will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war."

In this context, the report identified several potential trajectories for regional policy focused on protecting access to Gulf oil supplies, among which the following are most salient:

"Divide and Rule focuses on exploiting fault lines between the various Salafi-jihadist groups to turn them against each other and dissipate their energy on internal conflicts. This strategy relies heavily on covert action, information operations (IO), unconventional warfare, and support to indigenous security forces... the United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch proxy IO campaigns to discredit the transnational jihadists in the eyes of the local populace... US leaders could also choose to capitalize on the 'Sustained Shia-Sunni Conflict' trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world.... possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran."

Exploring different scenarios for this trajectory, the report speculated that the US may concentrate "on shoring up the traditional Sunni regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan as a way of containing Iranian power and influence in the Middle East and Persian Gulf." Noting that this could actually empower al-Qaeda jihadists, the report concluded that doing so might work in western interests by bogging down jihadi activity with internal sectarian rivalry rather than targeting the US:

"One of the oddities of this long war trajectory is that it may actually reduce the al-Qaeda threat to US interests in the short term. The upsurge in Shia identity and confidence seen here would certainly cause serious concern in the Salafi-jihadist community in the Muslim world, including the senior leadership of al-Qaeda. As a result, it is very likely that al-Qaeda might focus its efforts on targeting Iranian interests throughout the Middle East and Persian Gulf while simultaneously cutting back on anti-American and anti-Western operations."

The RAND document contextualised this disturbing strategy with surprisingly prescient recognition of the increasing vulnerability of the US's key allies and enemies - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, Egypt, Syria, Iran - to a range of converging crises: rapidly rising populations, a 'youth bulge', internal economic inequalities, political frustrations, sectarian tensions, and environmentally-linked water shortages, all of which could destabilise these countries from within or exacerbate inter-state conflicts.

The report noted especially that Syria is among several "downstream countries that are becoming increasingly water scarce as their populations grow", increasing a risk of conflict. Thus, although the RAND document fell far short of recognising the prospect of an 'Arab Spring', it illustrates that three years before the 2011 uprisings, US defence officials were alive to the region's growing instabilities, and concerned by the potential consequences for stability of Gulf oil.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this - the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria - that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?

Dr Nafeez Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development and author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilisation: And How to Save It among other books. Follow him on Twitter @nafeezahmed

General News 9/2/2013 at 11:11:51
Syrian Rebels Claim Saudi Prince Bandar Responsible For Chemical Weapons Attack
By Dennis Trainor, Jr.

cross posted from Acronym TV
It is growing increasingly possible that public outcry might make the Imperial force of American Exceptionalism, with its humanitarian war sights set on Syria, back down.



by Acronym TV
New evidence is surfacing about just who might be behind the chemical attacks, with a credible view published by a journalist with 20 years middle East pointing to evidence that the Saudis could have supplied the Rebel forces with chemical weapons and, in the untrained hands of the rebels, the Chemical Weapons detonated in a tragic accident. This, of course, flies in the face of the thesis put forward by Obama, who claims that the Assad regime was so brazenly violating international norms that he needed to be dethroned, or at the very least, sent a very strong message visa vie hellfire missiles reigning down from a US lead coalition of the willing. That the drone commander in chief does not see drone strikes in countries that have not declared war on US to be something within the set of acceptable international norms should be an impeachable offense in and of itself. Now that the U.S. has lost the leading lap-dog (the U.K.) in it's coalition of the willing standing at the ready to march in lock step with whatever our next move on the Armageddon chessboard that is the Middle East might be, what will congress do when they reconvene on September 9th?

http://www.AcronymTV.com
Dennis Trainor, Jr. is the creator and host of Acronym TV and the writer, director and producer of the documentary American Autumn: an Occudoc.

Hands Off Syria!
How the U.S. Left is Failing Over Syria

by SHAMUS COOKE
It’s now painfully clear that Obama’s war on Syria is a replay of Bush’s march to war in Iraq, both built on lies. Zero evidence has been put forth that proves the Syrian government used chemical weapons. On the contrary, evidence has been collected that suggests the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are responsible for the attack.

If Obama wages an aggressive attack on Syria — especially without UN authorization — he’ll be committing a major international crime that will, by any standard, make him a war criminal, just like Bush before him.

And because Obama’s attack on Syria followed Bush’s logic, you’d assume that liberal, progressive, and other Left groups would do what they did when Bush went to war: denounce it unconditionally and organize against it.

But that’s not what happened. Because this didn’t happen, less accurate information was made available to the public, and fewer public mobilizations have occurred, thus re-enforcing Obama’s ability to wage an aggressive war.

There are four pieces of information that all left groups have a duty to report about Syria, but they have either ignored or minimized:

1) Obama presented zero evidence to back up his main justification for war: that the Syrian Government used chemical weapons against civilians.

2) A top UN investigator, Carla Del Ponte, blamed a previous chemical weapons attack on the U.S.-backed rebels.

3) Any attack on Syria, no matter how “limited,” has a high risk of expanding into neighboring countries if Syria exercises its right as a sovereign nation to defend itself.

4) A war against Syria will be a violation of international law, since it is not approved by the UN, and therefore will make President Obama a war criminal.

There has been a broad spectrum of leftist failure to address these issues and condemn Obama’s war, ranging from those who take an overtly pro-war position to those who use anti-war slogans that are stained with pro-war justifications. A consistent “Hands Off Syria” message was hard to find.

The most guilty parties who have aided and assisted Obama’s expected war plans will have blood-stained hands after the bombing begins. Perhaps the best example of this coterie is Van Jones, the former adviser to Obama who founded the Rebuild The Dream organization. On CNN, Jones announced his new appetite for foreign war:

“I think we need to stand behind this president and send a clear message to Assad that this type behavior is not acceptable.”

Many liberals took Jones’ “stand by our president” approach, even if it wasn’t stated as directly as Jones did, and even after “our president” was unable to present any sensible reason for waging another aggressive war in the Middle East.

A notch lower on the leftist spectrum of Syria war guilt is MoveOn.org, which has done everything in their power not to portray President Obama’s actions in their true light. But MoveOn had to take a more creative approach to covering up for Obama in Syria.

MoveOn organized a “teach-in” that was streamed on their website. The panel of speakers — with one exception — presented Obama’s position in a very evenhanded, “objective” way, presenting the president as an entirely reasonable person for wanting to bomb Syria, even if it might not be the best way to deal with the situation.

Instead of pointing out the flagrant similarities between Obama’s Syria war rationale and George Bush’s Iraq War lies, these similarities were papered over, thus legitimizing Obama’s criminal actions.

The worst Obama apologist on the panel was Matt Duss from the Center for American Progress, who explained that, although he was against a war on Syria, he “respects” that “other progressives of good faith may come to a different view.”

Phyllis Bennis from the Institute of Policy Studies was the only consistent anti-war panelist, who appeared as a fringe element when compared to the rest of the panel, only because she offered a common sense, consistent anti-war message.

The teach-in ended with a “what can we do” segment to influence the situation. Instead of mobilizing in the streets against Obama, the panelists discussed “contacting congressmen,” “calling the White House’s comment line,” “tweeting,” “email,” “petitions,” but no call was made for doing what was done against Bush: mobilize people in the streets to demand that the war be stopped.

MoveOn further exposed their pro-Obama, pro-war attitude on the website, where for days the featured petition being promoted was titled: “President Obama: Don’t Strike Syria Without Congressional Approval.”

Again, there is no basis for any strike on Syria, period — Congressional approval or otherwise. Even if Congress doesn’t approve Obama’s actions in Syria, it’s likely that he’ll attack Syria anyway, just as happened in Libya after Congress refused authorization.

On the lower end of the spectrum of leftist failure on Syria sits the International Socialist Organization (ISO). After Obama announced his intention to attack Syria, the ISO’s main article, “Imperial Hypocrisy to Justify an Assault,” neglected to address any of the above-stated four critical points about the situation in Syria.

But the ISO’s article went beyond mere neglect of facts; in several instances it re-enforced Obama’s war plans by unquestionably accepting Obama’s claim that there was “evidence” that the Syrian government used chemical weapons against civilians.

After Obama’s “evidence” was accepted, the ISO article then went on to plagiarize John Kerry’s hyper-dramatization of the YouTube video that showed the after effects of the attack:

“The mass killing in Ghouta was so awful that it forced the debate on Syria to a head. The warheads filled with sarin gas were targeted not at rebel fighters, but women and children in their beds. Their lungs filled with fluid, suffocating them. Hundreds more suffered severe and crippling injuries. Anyone with a sense of justice will be incensed by such a calculated effort to terrorize a vulnerable civilian population.”

Nowhere in the ISO article does it say “Hands Off Syria” or does it clearly denounce Obama’s pending attack on Syria. The article merely states that the U.S. is acting “hypocritically,” which, although true, falls tragically short of the needed response, therefore allowing more political space for Obama to wage a brutal attack.

It’s important to note that the above groups and individuals also politically failed BEFORE Obama announced a direct military intervention, since they did not sound the alarm bells of the long-approaching attack.

For example, the U.S. has been training, funding, and arming Syrian rebels for almost two years now, while having led the diplomatic organizing efforts of a group of rich Syrian exiles that Obama refers to as the “legitimate” government of Syria. Obama stated several times that “Assad must go.” The political Left had a duty to explain the significance of these events and their likely outcome, direct U.S. military intervention.

All of the above groups are also guilty of demonizing Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad, buying in on the propaganda that he is worse than the Al Qaeda-linked rebels who are attacking him. This is a crucial element of justifying any aggressive war. Every head of state that is targeted by the U.S. government must be portrayed as an inspiring “Hitler,” since attacking a nation led by “Hitler” is, of course, a “good” thing to do.

And although opinion is certainly divided over Assad, those in the U.S. wishing to stop an aggressive war must focus on the actions of their own country.

“Hands Off Syria” is a united front demand, meaning that it’s intentionally aimed to create a broad based appeal in an effort to mobilize as many people as possible. No anti-war movement — or any social movement — is powerful without massive, ongoing mobilizations.

Within the united front demand of Hands Off Syria there is plenty of room for other tactics and room to discuss the deeper politics of the movement, but creating the largest possible mobilizations must be the base ingredient, and this can only be done under a demand that is capable of bringing together broad sections of the U.S. public.

The question of war sadly remains the greatest immediate threat the world faces, especially in light of an increasingly conflict-ridden and dangerous Middle East. The United States government is hell-bent on reckless wars that are increasingly likely to spiral out of control as they bring abject misery to the affected populations around the world while funneling money for badly needed social programs here in the U.S. into campaigns of death and destruction. Unequivocally denouncing U.S. foreign aggression is the duty of all working people who value peace, hate war, and aspire to create a better world.

Hands Off Syria! Bring the Troops Home NOW!

Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk
By William R. Polk.

Polk wrote this just before President Obama switched from his go-it-alone policy and decided to seek Congressional approval for a Syrian strike. It remains relevant for the choices Congress, the public, and the president have to make. It is very long, but it is systematically laid out as a series of 13 questions, with answers. If you're in a rush, you could skip ahead to question #7, on the history and use of chemical weapons. Or #6, about the under-publicized role of drought, crop failure, and climate change in Syria's predicament. But please consider the whole thing when you have the time to sit down for a real immersion in Congress's upcoming decision. It wouldn't hurt if Senators and Representatives read it too.

Hands Off Syria!
How the U.S. Left is Failing Over Syria

by SHAMUS COOKE
It’s now painfully clear that Obama’s war on Syria is a replay of Bush’s march to war in Iraq, both built on lies. Zero evidence has been put forth that proves the Syrian government used chemical weapons. On the contrary, evidence has been collected that suggests the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are responsible for the attack.

If Obama wages an aggressive attack on Syria — especially without UN authorization — he’ll be committing a major international crime that will, by any standard, make him a war criminal, just like Bush before him.

And because Obama’s attack on Syria followed Bush’s logic, you’d assume that liberal, progressive, and other Left groups would do what they did when Bush went to war: denounce it unconditionally and organize against it.

8bitagent » Wed Sep 04, 2013 8:16 pm wrote:

Hands Off Syria!
How the U.S. Left is Failing Over Syria

by SHAMUS COOKE
It’s now painfully clear that Obama’s war on Syria is a replay of Bush’s march to war in Iraq, both built on lies. Zero evidence has been put forth that proves the Syrian government used chemical weapons. On the contrary, evidence has been collected that suggests the U.S.-backed Syrian rebels are responsible for the attack.

If Obama wages an aggressive attack on Syria — especially without UN authorization — he’ll be committing a major international crime that will, by any standard, make him a war criminal, just like Bush before him.

And because Obama’s attack on Syria followed Bush’s logic, you’d assume that liberal, progressive, and other Left groups would do what they did when Bush went to war: denounce it unconditionally and organize against it.

Does this writer live in a cave? I've seen an insane across the spectrum outcry over the possibility of war from the left including many mainstream liberals. Way more so than the Manning or drone issue. Even in my po dunk town there was a sizeable protest wrt Syrian strikes. Not only that but for the first time you have a lot of right wingers against a war. Noone is for this war but a few.