In the 1930s, Bertolt Brecht asked in a poem “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” The question today is of course silly. The United States will always be there for a war. In the first rejection of a request for military action since 1782, the Parliament voted 285 to 272 against approving a military strike against Syria. Undeterred, the White House today is saying that it is considering just bombing the country on its own and throwing aside any pretense of an international effort. By the way, that last time Parliament refused further military action was when the Crown was fighting a collection of colonies in the New World who, after independence, strongly opposed “foreign entanglements” and military ventures. The United States of America.
As we discussed yesterday, this appears a war designed to save face for Obama. While news reports indicate that Obama’s reference to a “red line” was not in his original speech, it committed the country to act if chemical weapons were used in Syria. I spoke to a reporter working at the Pentagon two days ago who told me that military leaders are heavily opposed to the ultimatum and to military action. However, it is now embarrassing for the President and the White House wants to show that he will not be ignored or mocked — even if it is a lesson that will cost over $1 billion and risk a wider war.
Of course Obama has his allies in Congress like Nancy Pelosi and the media like David Ignatius at the Washington Post who says military action is necessary simply because “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad overrode a clear American warning against such use of chemical weapons.” So we need to enter another war “to demonstrate that there are consequences for crossing a U.S. ‘red line.’ Otherwise, the coherence of the global system begins to dissolve.” The point is simple. The world must obey our commands and we are not to be mocked. It is the ultimate expression of American exceptionalism.
In a bizarre gesture, the White House is now promising just a limited strike or a “shot across the bow.” It is as if we are saying to the world “just let us do this as a gesture and we will be satisfied.”
Notably, England still gets a vote on military action. Since that last vote in 1782, the United States has created an Imperial President while England has evolved into a more democratic system. The Framers must be looking down in utter confusion.
**And all of it as preordained by a Saudi prince, and all in the name of perpetuating the hegemony of the petrodollar. **
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-30/dont-show-obama-report-about-who-really-behind-syrian-chemical-attacks
Kerry will be releasing his unclassified version of reasons Obama will go kill even more people.
Not acceptable. All the evidence should be in the public domain and all the evidence should be examined by independent authorities. The US has a record of lying, not only about Iraq but quite recently it has lied again and again about what it’s intelligence agencies have actually been doing.
It is folly to grant these agencies automatic, unquestioned authority on the matter. They have been lying to us. Why are they deemed credible? Why is the US refusing outside authentication of their “evidence”? That is very suspicious. In fact, it is exactly like Iraq where information was made up from whole cloth and everyone was supposed to accept US intelligence at face value, even when contradictory evidence had surfaced.
We cannot allow this again. It is shameful, it is stupid, it is disastrous to not submit everything the US claims to independent analysis. If that means Obama doesn’t get to go bombing, then good.
If Obama cares so much for the Syrian people why is he spending all his time, political capital and money on war instead of demanding an immediate truce with a meeting in Geneva? He should have started that a long time ago. Notice that he won’t even get that going now. Why not?
In the meantime, evidence can be collected by people who are actually neutral, and haven’t been caught lying to the public about matters as serious as violations of the 4th amendment.
(Also in the Guardian today, more lies from the USG about OBL. They made knowingly false claims about the DNA during a FOIA request. Evidence was destroyed and relocated. Sure, just trust us, we wouldn’t lie now would we?)
“I always thought this was a “false flag” operation and that’s precisely what the Russians have been saying … Why would Assad, who is winning, risk third party intervention”
Another web site raised the question ‘why would Assad initiate such an attack on the eve of arrival of UN inspectors, especially sense the regime is winning.
I don’t know if there was a false flag attack.
But I do believe we the US has to answer that question with more tham ‘we would show you our proof… but it is classified because it might compromise methods and sources’.
“a war designed to save face for Obama”
I’m reminded of the famous Ann Lander’s remark:
“If you want to save face, keep the lower half shut”
” strikes contemplated by the United States,…. are a moral responsibility that can level the playing field militarily.”
“We are not after punishing Assad more than having a military intervention to get rid of his brutal dictatorship”
Actually no.
Everything we know about the contemplated strikes tells us that they will be carefully calibrated not to tip the balance in the civil war. Even the administration admits the attack is not about leveling ‘the playing field militarily’ or regime change.
The strikes are about sending a message. The message is either ‘don’t use chemical weapons’ or ‘don’t mess with a US president’ depending on your point of view.
If the US wanted to tip the balance militarily the US could simply deliver some of the weapons to insurgents … the weapons it has been talking about sending for weeks.
When it comes to tipping the military balance the administration seems to be more concerned with seeming to be on the right side than with actually committing weapons to a particular faction.
If anyone is counting, the US has transportation capacity to make initial deliveries of weapons in days if not hours. It just does not take weeks to deliver weapons to militias in Syria. In fairness and accuracy, a continuing stream of weapons and ammunition might indeed require weeks. But initial deliveries of the most desperately needed anti armor weapons could happen tomorrow or the next day, and could have happened weeks ago, if the President were to will it so.
If the real intent of the administration were to ” level the playing field militarily” there would be no need for an attack. There are much better and easier ways to do ‘level the playing field militarily’ than by launching an attack.
Oky1:
I always thought this was a “false flag” operation and that’s precisely what the Russians have been saying. Why would Assad, who is winning, risk third party intervention to kill just 300 people with chemical weapons.
We’d do well to avoid all conflicts in the Middle East:
From Geo. Washington’s Farewell Address:
“6 The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.
37 Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.
38 Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.
39 Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?
40 It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
41 Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.
42 Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.
Has Chris Matthews called the parliament racist yet?
Oliver Stone: Obama is a snake, we have to turn on him.
Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely: Obama’s Forged Birth Certificate & Multiple Social Security Numbers
Everything Obama and his administration have done / signed is ILLEGAL, NULL and VOID.
Question:
What do Laura Bush, Lynne Cheney, Michelle Obama, Jill Biden, Eva Braun, Emmy Göring, Martha Mengele, Rachel Kaganovich and Jiang Qing have in common?
Answer:
They all married Mass Murderers / War Criminals
The Satanic U.S. Government is planning to murder Syrians with bombs
to show that murdering people with chemical weapons is a moral obscenity
Obama Defiles Martin Luther King’s Memory
King was an Adamant Anti-War Activist. Obama is a black Hitler, Mass Murderer, Warmonger, Supreme War Criminal.
Obama should have been arrested years ago.
The congress, mainstream media, governmental agencies and judicial system are treasonous cowards.
http://www.infowars.com/50-years-later-west-defiles-martin-luther-kings-memory/
RWL, Thanks for the link.
Here is an excellent article in reference to War and our country (and probably other countries):
http://wiredcampus.chronicle.com/article/Why-Violence-Works/140951/
By Benjamin Ginsberg
“Humans, and perhaps their prehuman ancestors, have engaged in murder and mayhem, as individuals and in groups, for hundreds of thousands of years. And, at least since the advent of recorded history, violence and politics have been intimately related. Nation-states use violence against internal and external foes. Dissidents engage in violence against states. Competing political forces inflict violence on one another. Writing in 1924, Winston Churchill declared—with good reason—that “the story of the human race is war.”
Mr. Ginsberg ends his article by stating: “Thus, like it or not, violence often is the answer to our political problems.”
Professor Turley points out the question:
One wonders what they were smoking back then, because they also outlawed war about that time:
(When The World Outlawed War). There is something else going on in western civilization.
“What do I think of Western civilization? I think it would be a very good idea.” -Mahatma Gandhi
Even as a guest blogger I often have differences with our blogs proprietor. However, I am in total agreement with everything Professor Turley has written in this post. The entire premise of bombing Syria to express displeasure at their ignoring a Presidential dictat is not only bizarre, but incredibly stupid. That anyone should die from a “beau geste” signifying and accomplishing nothing is irrational.
What is really happening, we don’t know, but we do know only Fools rush in!
** Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack
Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident
Paul Joseph Watson
August 30, 2013
Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press journalist Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.
Rebels Admit Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attack 300813rebels
Image: YouTube
“From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” more……..**
http://www.prisonplanet.com/rebels-admit-responsibility-for-chemical-weapons-attack.html
Enter Nancy:
“…Pelosi the hawk tells Barack Obama to act on Syria”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/nancy-pelosi-barack-obama-syria-96065.html#.UiCRAdXZDFI.twitter
Excerpt:
“It is clear that the American people are weary of war. However, Assad gassing his own people is an issue of our national security, regional stability and global security,” Pelosi said in a statement after the 90-minute conference call with members of the National Security Council and 26 high-ranking lawmakers.
Wag the Dog comes to mind.
And the PM…. In his last act before removal…. No confidence vote will side with the US…. That’s my prediction….
WOW, the intensity for going to war has upped to hysterical. I just went over to the live blog at the Guardian. Here are some things that really struck me.
1. Obviously, the plan is not really about sending a message about the use of chemical weapons: It clearly includes helping those who oppose Assad, something Obama has already been doing by sending in weapons. This is why it is not possible to say Obama represents a neutral party in this situation. If helping the “rebels” is on the agenda, this is a long war.
“… Jarba said that strikes contemplated by the United States, France, and, originally, Britain are a moral responsibility that can level the playing field militarily. He said that “strikes can paralyse a large part of the regime and raise morale” within the opposition. As for Britain’s vote, he said it wouldn’t stop allies of the Syrian people “from ending injustice”.
2. Here, intervention is specifically about regime change. “The distinctive banners with red and white text produced by the people of Kafranbel in Idlib, in north-west Syria, have become a feature of the uprising against Bashar al-Assad. In their latest effort, seen in this video, they urge military intervention. It says:
We are not after punishing Assad more than having a military intervention to get rid of his brutal dictatorship and let us live peacefully.”
3. The US and UK are supposed to be democracies. How then can holding a vote before going to war constitute a betrayal? The names being thrown about are not about the use of democratic procedures, rather they are the result of coming up with a decision the US and other powerful entities didn’t want. The US not getting what it wants is not a betrayal, it means democracy is working.
4. Finally, over and over we hear of the moral duty to condemn chemical weapons. This does not need a military response. There are peaceful, lawful responses. I deeply question the “moral” nature of a military response. It is absurd to say that one must punish the deaths of civilians by killing more of them. This is propaganda they have been using since the beginning of the run up to war.
The true choice is between doing something that will kill other people and cause great harm to the entire region and doing something that will help civilians and make it clear that chemical weapons use will not be tolerated.
By submitting full, verifiable evidence to all the world and by using peaceful methods to deal with the outcome, the US will start to regain some credibility in the world.
Thank you Mr Turley! This—like so many others of your observations—was simply magnificent! I nominate Jonathan Turley for Attorney-General, Secretary of Defense and of State, and Chief Justice…..oh well, keep the pearls of wisdom coming!