"Obama decided on a position & cherry-picked the intelligence to fit itt"

(IPS)- "... 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...."

Fmr. Head of French Intel: "NO 'smoking gun' on Syria's CWs!"

"... Ensuite, le document confirme que les services de plusieurs Etats collaborent à cette surveillance et échangent des informations sur le sujet. Il est vraisemblable que les services israéliens, pour ne citer qu’eux, ont fourni des indications précises quant aux modes opératoires des attaques....... S’agissant de l’attaque du 21 août, on cherche en vain dans le texte le « smoking gun » c’est-à-dire la preuve irréfutable de l’ordre donné par l’autorité suprême syrienne et celle de la mise en œuvre par l’armée de Bachar d’armes porteuses d’agents chimiques contre les populations des banlieues de Damas.On se cantonne ici à l’analyse des sources ouvertes confortée là encore par des informations fournies par des services alliés. Pas de preuve déterminante donc de la culpabilité directe du régime. Ce n’est pas suffisant pour convaincre les indécis et les opposants à un engagement actif de la France dans une opération en force....
En conclusion, on se contentera d’un document « de commande », construit à la demande du pouvoir politique pour servir de caution à la participation française à une action concertée avec d’autres acteurs, et de calmer le débat national. Il ne s’agit en aucun cas d’une révélation et d’une démonstration magistrale de ce qui s’est réellement passé dans la Goutha cette nuit du 21 août, ou plusieurs centaines de personnes sont mortes..."

"Obama Warned on Syrian Intel"

"... "We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.” We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised. Secretary of State John Kerry departs for a Sept. 6 trip to Europe where he plans to meet with officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and other issues. (State Department photo) The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today...

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.) 

'A war the Pentagon doesn’t want' (but AIPAC & payees, want!)

"... The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.
Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.
They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.
They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.
They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about “red lines.” These acts would be for retribution and to restore the reputation of a president. Our serving professionals make the point that killing more Syrians won’t deter Iranian resolve to confront us. The Iranians have already gotten the message.
Our people lament our loneliness. Our senior soldiers take pride in their past commitments to fight alongside allies and within coalitions that shared our strategic goals. This war, however, will be ours alone.
They are tired of wannabe soldiers who remain enamored of the lure of bloodless machine warfare. “Look,” one told me, “if you want to end this decisively, send in the troops and let them defeat the Syrian army. If the nation doesn’t think Syria is worth serious commitment, then leave them alone.” But they also warn that Syria is not Libya or Serbia. Perhaps the United States has become too used to fighting third-rate armies. As the Israelis learned in 1973, the Syrians are tough and mean-spirited killers with nothing to lose.
Our military members understand and take seriously their oath to defend the constitutional authority of their civilian masters. They understand that the United States is the only liberal democracy that has never been ruled by its military. But today’s soldiers know war and resent civilian policymakers who want the military to fight a war that neither they nor their loved ones will experience firsthand.
Civilian control of the armed services doesn’t mean that civilians shouldn’t listen to those who have seen war. Our most respected soldier president, Dwight Eisenhower, possessed the gravitas and courage to say no to war eight times during his presidency. He ended the Korean War and refused to aid the French in Indochina; he said no to his former wartime friends Britain and France when they demanded U.S. participation in the capture of the Suez Canal. And he resisted liberal democrats who wanted to aid the newly formed nation of South Vietnam. We all know what happened after his successor ignored Eisenhower’s advice. My generation got to go to war.
Over the past few days, the opinions of officers confiding in me have changed to some degree. Resignation seems to be creeping into their sense of outrage. One officer told me: “To hell with them. If this guy wants this war, then let him have it. Looks like no one will get hurt anyway.”
Soon the military will salute respectfully and loose the hell of hundreds of cruise missiles in an effort that will, inevitably, kill a few of those we wish to protect. They will do it with all the professionalism and skill we expect from the world’s most proficient military. I wish Kerry would take a moment to look at the images from this week’s hearings before we go to war again."

"Special Cargo"

AFP 

"... A Russian warship carrying "special cargo" will be dispatched toward Syria, a navy source said on Friday, as the Kremlin beefs up its presence in the region ahead of a possible US attack on Syria.The large landing ship Nikolai Filchenkov will on Friday leave the Ukrainian port city of Sevastopol for the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiisk, from where it will head to Syria's coast, the Interfax news agency quoted a source from the Saint Petersburg-based central naval command as saying.
"The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean," the source said.
The source did not specify the nature of the cargo.
In recent days Russia has made steps to beef up its naval grouping in the region.
The Russian destroyer Smetlivy will soon join the group in the region as well as the destroyer Nastoichivy, Interfax has said.

The anti-submarine ship Admiral Panteleyev has already entered its zone of operation as the flagship of the current rotation of the Mediterranean grouping, a military source has told the news agency.
Already in place in the eastern Mediterranean are the frigate Neustrashimy, as well as the landing ships Alexander Shabalin, the Admiral Nevelsky and the Peresvet.
They are expected to be joined by the large landing ships Novocherkassk and Minsk and the missile cruiser Moskva. The reconnaissance ship Priazovye is also on its way to join the group.
The United States already has a strong naval presence in the region and any US assault against Syria is expected to be launched from the sea."

Kerry has problems with the truth, numbers & the Intelligence community!

"... In Washington on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry addressed the issue of radicalized rebels in an exchange with Representative Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican. Mr. Kerry insisted, “There is a real moderate opposition that exists.”Mr. Kerry said that there were 70,000 to 100,000 “oppositionists.” Of these, he said, some 15 percent to 20 percent were “bad guys” or extremists.
Mr. McCaul responded by saying he had been told in briefings that half of the opposition fighters were extremists...."

Saudis’ big push to equip rebels before airstrikes

"...The CIA is supervising fresh weapons consignments from Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to Syria’s rebels to help them to capitalise on a US bombing offensive that could start next week. ..."

AIPAC all alone on Syria

"... It remains to be seen if any other center-left groups will come out in support of Obama’s request for action in Syria. The liberal groups organized around the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would be unlikely to abandon their anti-war politics at Obama’s demand. Several of those outfits, such as the veteran-led VoteVets.org and the grassroots group MoveOn, announced their opposition to striking Syria on Wednesday.The hawkish groups that existed back in 2008 were overwhelmingly on the right. As much as an attack on Assad’s Syria might be in line with the larger goals of foreign policy hawks, it’s not as if Obama has even partially embraced the broader agenda of 2008-vintage groups such as Freedom’s Watch . . .
As of mid-week, that left several major Jewish political organizations – including the Republican Jewish Coalition, the National Jewish Democratic Council and AIPAC – in what several strategists described as a lonely and uncomfortable position of endorsing military action against Syrian dictator Bashar Assad without much help from other advocacy-group allies..."

"Once the combat begins, it only ends with regime change!"

'Harper' on SST writes:

"... I am told by current intelligence officials that President Obama intends to bomb Syria in the coming days--with or without Congressional approval.  With the whip count in the House of Representatives looking worse and worse for the war party, the White House is pressing Harry Reid to rush the Senate vote, perhaps as early as Monday evening, Sept. 9, the day that the Congress returns to Washington and the debate is scheduled to begin.  If Obama can get a Senate majority, sources close to the White House say that he will order strikes before the House can get started.  Perhaps this is why Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is saying that a House vote is unlikely before the week of Sept. 16, given that passions are running so high on the issue.  The reality is that opposition in the House is growing and the chance of a "yes" vote from the GOP-led lower chamber is well below 50 percent.
President Obama's problems go way beyond the Halls of Congress.  He is facing three daunting problems with his Syria war scheme, according to one senior US intelligence officer.  First, the case that Assad ordered the chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 is, at best, circumstantial.  A triangulation of intercepts by Israeli, German and US sigint agencies has been pitched to Congress as "proof" that Assad did it.  But the case is flimsy and, ultimately, is all based on interpretations of conversations involving Syrian military commanders, Iranian diplomats and Hezbollah leaders.  Clearly the American people are also unconvinced, as the opposition to any military action is polling well above 80 percent in most recent polls.
Second, even if President Obama were to win support of one or both Houses of Congress, any US unilateral action without approval of the United Nations Security Council is a violation of international law.  Obama is about to order a war of aggression which is explicity barred by the UN Charter.
Third, in his private White House meeting on Monday with Senate hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham, President Obama assured them that the planned bombing campaign would indeed alter the military balance on the ground in Syria in favor of the rebels.  The President told McCain and Graham one thing behind closed doors, while professing that his military plan is merely a punishment and deterrent to assure Assad won't ever consider using chemical weapons again in public. Remember that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates resigned from the Cabinet over the decision to establish a no-fly zone over Libya on "humanitarian grounds."  Gates was correct when he warned that a no-fly zone is an act of war and that once the combat begins, it only ends with regime change.  Is the President lying to McCain and Graham to get their critical support in the Senate or is he lying to the American people when he says that the objectives of the military operation are strictly limited?
The Obama flight forward in Syria is also premised on the belief that the Assad government and its allies will sit back and do nothing in retaliation for US strikes.  Is there any basis in reality for this assumption?  When Secretary of State John Kerry, testifying before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Wednesday tried to dismiss the al-Qaeda penetration of the Syrian opposition, Russian President Vladimir Putin was so angry that he publicly called Kerry a liar.  US intelligence estimates, that Kerry has clearly seen, warn of the degree of penetration of the Syrian rebel forces by radical jihadists who hate the United States.  Under pressure, Kerry admitted that 15-25 percent of the rebel fighters are jihadists.  Is there a Special National Intelligence Estimate on how the Russians or the Iranians or Hezbollah will respond to Obama's US missile barrage?  The answer is "no."
Yet President Obama has taken it as an article of blind faith that there will be no retaliation for the so-called "limited" US strikes that he could order at any moment after the Senate vote early next week.  This President, who knows nothing about military affairs, is bringing the United States to the brink of what could rapidly escalate into world war.  It seems that 80 percent of the American people are smart enough to realize that and want nothing of it.  In his remarks in Sweden earlier this week, President Obama was at his Narcissistic peak, proclaiming that "history" has drawn the red line on Assad's use of chemical weapons and that he is merely acting as the messenger and executioner of "history's judgment."

On Syria, "things are looking progressively dimmer for the Obama administration"

WaPo

Iran enhanced role

"... Iran cannot rule out the possibility that even limited U.S. action will weaken the regime. Nor can it conclude that Washington does not intend to conduct a more extensive, less symbolic air campaign against al Assad. But it can, however, prepare for either outcome. Strategists in Tehran know that the Americans have air superiority, but they know Iran has the advantage on the ground in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq.

Iran is thus positioned to foment an insurgency. (And the U.S. invasion of Iraq enhanced Iran's experience in fomenting insurgencies.) Any insurgency would worsen sectarian tensions in Syria and throughout the region, in turn further radicalizing Sunni militias. Jihadists gaining ground would force the United States to work with Tehran to contain Sunni radicalism.

In the unlikely scenario that the United States becomes embroiled in another major war, extricating itself from that war would necessarily require Iran's cooperation. But what really gives Iran leverage is the fact that since 9/11, jihadists and Islamist groups have had the opportunity to gain power when Arab regimes collapse..."

Kerry lies a lot nowadays

(Reuters) - "Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate  Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements..."

'Liar' says Putin of JK

Remember 'Clean Break' (1996)?

Iraq: checked. Syria: apparently checked. Hezbollah & Iran: tried, but not checked!

"... "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions."
"Since Iraq's future could affect the strategic balance in the Middle East profoundly, it would be understandable that Israel has an interest in supporting the Hashemites in their efforts to redefine Iraq,including such measures as: visiting Jordan as the first official state visit, even before a visit to the United States, of the new Netanyahu government; supporting King Hussein by providing him with some tangible security measures to protect his regime against Syrian subversion; encouraging — through influence in the U.S. business community — investment in Jordan to structurally shift Jordan’s economy away from dependence on Iraq; and diverting Syria’s attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon. .. Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizballah, Iran, and Syria. Shia retain strong ties to the Hashemites: the Shia venerate foremost the Prophet’s family, the direct descendants of which — and in whose veins the blood of the Prophet flows — is King Hussein."

NYTimes: "Syria's rebels' ranks populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers & killers"

"... The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.This scene, documented in a video smuggled out of Syria a few days ago by a former rebel who grew disgusted by the killings, offers a dark insight into how many rebels have adopted some of the same brutal and ruthless tactics as the regime they are trying to overthrow.
As the United States debates whether to support the Obama administration’s proposal that Syrian forces should be attacked for using chemical weapons against civilians, this video, shot in April, joins a growing body of evidence of an increasingly criminal environment populated by gangs of highwaymen, kidnappers and killers..."

All 'classified' but for your own good!

"... How would Russia and other Syrian allies respond to a U.S. strike? “We all agree that that would be best handled in a classified session,” Kerry said.No, we don’t all agree...  

Arming the Syrian opposition? That “would require a closed or classified hearing.” The broad effects of the military strike? “I would prefer to speak out in a classified setting.” Could Hezbollah have chemical weapons? “We need to talk about that in our classified session.” Would allies join an attack? It “would not be appropriate to speak about in an unclassified setting.” Could an attack make Assad use chemical weapons again? “I urge you to go to the classified briefing.”

At Wednesday’s hearing, Kerry said that “beyond a reasonable doubt, the evidence proves that the Assad regime prepared this attack.” He then dangled this: “In an appropriate setting, you will learn additional evidence which came to us even today.”
But isn’t it “appropriate” for the American public to see some hard evidence? During Tuesday’s Senate hearing, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) asked for the administration to “declassify a higher percentage of the information that we have so the American people and the international community can see it.”
Kerry said that the amount declassified is “unprecedented” and that what’s out there now is “sufficient.”
He may think so. But it’s not sufficient until the American public believes it."

Kerry is overwhelmed by the Syria chatter

"... John Kerry was making his “beyond a reasonable doubt” case against Syria’s Bashar al-Assad on Wednesday when he gave lawmakers a bit of faulty intelligence.“Just today, before coming in here, I read an e-mail to me about a general, the minister of defense, former minister or assistant minister, I forget which, who has just defected and is now in Turkey,” the secretary of state testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “And there are other defections that we are hearing about because of the potential that we might take action.”
A few minutes later, Kerry revised his account: This official-sounding “e-mail” was actually a Reuters news account about a former defense minister based on a claim by the Syrian opposition. “Reuters has now said the Syrian government is saying the defection has not taken place,” Kerry said. “So who knows whether it has or hasn’t?”Who knows?
This is the problem with the case the Obama administration is making for attacking Syria.
Officials say the evidence is incontrovertible that Assad used sarin gas against his people. Lawmakers emerging from secret, classified briefings seem to agree. But while members of Congress are coming around to an attack on Syria, the American public remains skeptical. Why? Maybe it’s because the government won’t let them in on the secret.
The public heard about another “slam dunk” case a decade ago and, then as now, Democratic and Republican lawmakers agreed that the secret evidence was compelling. And it turned out to be wrong.  .."

Egypt jamming Al Jazeera's satellite signals

"... Al Jazeera announced on Tuesday that independent experts had determined on the basis of extensive investigation where the jamming was emanating from and were confident about both the locations and who is responsible.Trackers have pinpointed locations east and west of Cairo..."

The world: "US case for Syrian gas attack, strike has too many holes !"

"... WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s public case for attacking Syria is riddled with inconsistencies and hinges mainly on circumstantial evidence, undermining U.S. efforts this week to build support at home and abroad for a punitive strike against Bashar Assad’s regime.The case Secretary of State John Kerry laid out last Friday contained claims that were disputed by the United Nations, inconsistent in some details with British and French intelligence reports or lacking sufficient transparency for international chemical weapons experts to accept at face value..."

... and yet, Kerry is hurling towards war!

How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on Syria

"... All intelligence picked by the Troodos listening post is shared between the U.S. and British intelligence, Murray wrote, but no commmunictions such as the ones described in the U.S. intelligence summary were shared with the British Joint Intelligence Organisation.  Murray said a personal contact in U.S. intelligence had told him the reason was that the purported intercept came from the Israelis. The Israeli origin of the intelligence wasreported in the U.S. press as well, because an Israeli source apparently leaked it to a German magazine.The clumsy attempt to pass off intelligence claimed dubiously by the Israelis as a U.S. intercept raises a major question about the integrity of the entire document. The Israelis have an interest in promoting a U.S. attack on Syria, and the authenticity of the alleged intercept cannot be assumed. Murray believes that it is fraudulent..."

"It is time to produce those intercepts..."

"... Today is a time of great mistrust of government at home and abroad, and that has to be recognized. The old claim about holding back evidence to protect U.S. intelligence’s “sources and methods” no longer works.Based on the administration’s four-page assessment released Friday, the U.S. intelligence community has “intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on Aug. 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”
It is time to produce those intercepts. Who was that senior official? Of course that would show sources and methods, but at this late date who in the Syrian military does not recognize the U.S. capability to intercept its communications? The Obama administration’s problem will be that many probably won’t believe the legitimacy of the intercepts..."

' AIPAC 'mysteriously' disappears from NYT Syria story'

"... A reference to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC was mysteriously cut from a New York Times article published online Monday and in print Tuesday. The first version, published online Monday, quotes an anonymous administration official calling AIPAC the "800-pound gorilla in the room." The original article, which is still available on The Boston Globe's site, had two paragraphs worth of quotes from officials about the powerful lobbying group's position in the Syria debate:

"... Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of 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.”..."

"Over our Dead bodies!"

Egypt: Helicopters hit armed groups in Sinai

"...Egyptian helicopter gunships have fired rockets at armed groups based in Egypt's northern Sinai Peninsula, causing dozens of casualties, killing at least eight people according to a security official.At least a further 15 people were injured in the attack.
The security source said the two aircraft on Tuesday surprised gatherings of fighters in three houses in two locations, al-Muqataa and Touma, south of the town of Sheikh Zuweyid near the border with the Gaza Strip. ..."

White House to Congress: Help protect Israel

"... The Obama administration is using a time-tested pitch to get Congress to back military strikes in Syria: It will help protect Israel…The administration’s case that intervening benefits Israel will turn on what lawmakers hear from pro-Israel groups in their communities and from the reactions of leading Jewish lawmakers, said a senior House Democratic aide.The Israel angle “only has a major impact if it’s getting validated from others,” the aide said. “Doesn’t have to be AIPAC writ large, but the local AIPAC lay leaders that the members have personal relationships [with] need to be validating.”..."

Syria, in the WaPo's 'opinions' today

One,

"... According to polls, a strike on Syria, even in response to the proven use of chemical weapons, is opposed by a plurality of Americans. Neither the United States nor its allies faces any imminent threat from the Syrian regime. If the United States is a constitutional democracy, surely this is a case where the Congress, the people’s representatives, should determine whether the nation gets involved in — as the president put it — “someone else’s war.”

'Tightrope Walk'

"...This is not over yet. If Congress votes for strikes, it is likely that Obama will do something. But at that point he will be doing it by himself, and the inevitable death of innocents in even the smallest attack will bring him under fire from some of those most insistent that he do something about the war crimes in Syria.  ..."

Bandar end of June: "We will puncture Damascus in August: I have 30,000 fighters for that!"

... of which, less than a 1/4 are still alive, due to logistical snafus such as WH/Congress authorizations ... etc.

"The moral grandstanding about the use of CWs is cynical"

"...In reality, the kind of weapons used in the Syrian civil war has never been a decisive issue at all. If the staggering figure of 100,000 deaths since the conflict began is not morally compelling enough, then why should another 1,400 dead make a difference, just because they were gassed instead of shot, stabbed, tortured, blown up, hanged, or otherwise massacred? Nobody has offered a convincing explanation as to why chemical weapons cause a less dignified death than a mortar grenade. The moral grandstanding about their use is cynical. ..."

"An exceptionally weak statement by an exceptionally weak leader"

"...The third and lowest point in last week’s debate, however, was Cameron’s claim that the intervention he favors was neither about regime change nor even about taking sides in the Syrian conflict. This was an exceptionally weak statement by an exceptionally weak leader, creating an exceptional amount of political fog.Of course an intervention would be about taking sides. How could it not be? Of course it would be about ending Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime—perhaps not immediately, but certainly in the medium to long run. No talk of “punishment” or “teaching a lesson” can mask what it means to go to war. ..."

Egypt: 'Pro-Assad Mood Marks Return of Arab Nationalism'

"...The prospect of U.S. strikes against Syria is further stoking a surge of militaristic nationalism that has gripped a large portion of Egyptian society since the armed forces removed Muslim Brotherhood–affiliated President Mohamed Morsi from power on July 3 following huge protests. Morsi, who owed his presidency to the wave of Arab uprisings that began in 2011, enthusiastically supported the Syrian opposition and called for international intervention in the crisis.
Since taking power, the military-backed government that supplanted Morsi has changed Egypt’s official stance with regard to Syria, sternly rejecting military intervention and arguing against international action at the Arab League......
Last week, with the U.S. edging closer to an attack on Syria, nationalist rhetoric inside Egypt reached an even higher pitch. Hamdeen Sabahi, the leader of the Popular Current who came in third in last year’s presidential election, told a television interviewer, “If Egypt is going to be attacked, it will come from the north, from Syria. An attack on Syria is an attack on Egypt.”
The youthful activists who launched the campaign to unseat Morsi joined in the posturing. Mahmoud Badr, the spokesman for the Tamarod (Rebellion) Campaign, released a statement calling on Egypt to close the Suez Canal to warships involved in a potential strike on Syria, saying he “supported the Syrian Arab army in the face of the upcoming U.S. military strike against Syria.” Anyone who supported foreign intervention, he said, is a “traitor.” The group’s Facebook page is emblazoned with an image of an American flag in flames.
Sabahi, the protesters in downtown Cairo and some of Tamarod’s founders have something in common: their nationalism is infused with nostalgia for Nasser, who as a charismatic young army lieutenant colonel led the Free Officers in deposing Egypt’s British-backed monarchy in 1952. As President, he transformed the Egyptian state and brought Egypt into a short-lived union with Syria (a fact to which Sabahi explicitly referred last week). Though distinct from the Assad family’s Baathism (another variant of Arab nationalism), Nasserism is a current that still runs deep in Egyptian politics and has made something of a comeback in recent months. Some have drawn a direct comparison between Nasser and General Abdul Fattah al-Sisi, the 58-year-old army chief who, despite reportedly enjoying a good relationship with Morsi early in his term, carried out the July 3 coup against him. At Sunday’s demonstration against intervention in Syria, protesters held posters depicting al-Sisi and Nasser side by side.
Seeing more of Nasser’s portraits hanging from buildings in Cairo and hearing his name mentioned in the same breath as al-Sisi’s also casts a new light on the political crosscurrents that led to Morsi’s ouster. Standing among the crowd at Sunday’s demonstration was Mohamed Haikal, one of the five founders of Tamarod. By his reckoning, the impetus for the anti-Morsi campaign came not in May 2013 but in June 2012, when in a speech in Tahrir Square, the newly elected Morsi referred to the “long oppression” suffered by Egyptians in the several decades leading up to the 2011 revolution. “He said a sentence about the time of the ’60s, which was the years of Nasser,” Haikal said in an interview a week earlier. “We felt that we have been humiliated by the new President, that he is against our beloved leader and icon, Nasser.”.."

Israel is gravely concerned and that is very, very ... very good!

"... An Israeli official says, “If at the end of all of this, Assad is dealt a blow that looks more like a caress, what will happen is that American and Western deterrence in the region will totally collapse, which will be duly and carefully noted in Tehran. While everyone has their gaze fixed on Damascus, the real threat lurks in Tehran. In this state of affairs, it’s really better not to do anything.”

Obama’s proposal seeks broad war power despite vow of limits

"...WASHINGTON — While President Barack Obama insists he wants only a limited air attack on Syria, his proposed authorization of force would empower him to do much more than that. Congress is likely to impose tighter reins, as lawmakers have learned that presidents are prone to expand on powers once grantedThe substantive part of Obama’s proposed authorization of the use of military force, conveyed to congressional leaders over the weekend, contains 172 words. That’s significantly more than either the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Resolution authorizing the Vietnam War or the 2001 resolution authorizing retaliation for the 9/11 terror attacks, two measures that later became notorious for how aggressively presidents used them...."

Saudia: " "We stand by the will of the Syrian people. They know best their interests, so whatever they refuse, we refuse...(but bomb them nonetheless!)"

"..."We call upon the international community with all its power to stop this aggression against the Syrian people," Faisal said in Cairo, where he was attending a meeting of Arab League foreign ministers to discuss Syria.On the prospect of a US strike, he said: "We stand by the will of the Syrian people. They know best their interests, so whatever they accept, we accept, and whatever they refuse, we refuse."
The league last week accused the Syrian government of carrying out the August 21 chemical attacks in and around Damascus....However, some influential members of the league, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention. ..."

"God is on our side. Strangely enough, though, we keep losing"

"... “America is beyond power, it acts as in a dream, as a face of God. Wherever America is, there is freedom, and wherever America is not, madness rules with chains, darkness strangles millions. Beneath her patient bombers, paradise is possible.”The United States doesn’t fight for land, resources, hatred, revenge, tribute, religious conversion — the usual stuff. Along with the occasional barrel of oil, we fight for virtue.
Never mind that it doesn’t work out — the Gulf of Tonkin lies, Agent Orange,waterboarding, nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, the pointless horrors of Abu Ghraib, a fighter plane wiping out an Afghan wedding party, our explanation of civilian deaths as an abstraction: “collateral damage.”
Just so. We talk about our warmaking as if it were a therapeutic science — surgical strikes,precision bombing, graduated responses, a homeopathic treatment that uses war to cure us of war. “Like cures like,” as the homeopathic slogan has it; “the war to end all wars” as Woodrow Wilson is believed to have said of World War I. We send out our patient bombers in the manner of piling on blankets to break a child’s fever. We launch our missiles and say: “We’re doing it for your own good.”... 
And yet Americans still believe in the idea of the good and virtuous war. It scratches our Calvinist itch; it proves our election to blessedness.
Thus God is on our side. Strangely enough, though, we keep losing. Since World War II, we have failed to win any land war that lasted more than a week: Korea (a stalemate),Vietnam, little ones like Lebanon and Somalia, bigger ones like Iraq and Afghanistan. Ah, but these were all intended to be good wars, saving people from themselves.
The latest target of opportunity for our patient bombers is Syria. The purity of our motives is unassailable. We would fire our missiles only to punish sin, this time in the form of poison gas. No land grab, no oil, not even an attempt to install democracy...."

Syria Statement: "Proof put forward by the U.S. is insufficient to sway disbelievers & skepticism will be widespread"

International Crisis Group : 

Assuming the U.S. Congress authorises them, Washington (together with some allies) soon will launch military strikes against Syrian regime targets. If so, it will have taken such action for reasons largely divorced from the interests of the Syrian people. The administration has cited the need to punish, deter and prevent use of chemical weapons - a defensible goal, though Syrians have suffered from far deadlier mass atrocities during the course of the conflict without this prompting much collective action in their defence. The administration also refers to the need, given President Obama's asserted "redline" against use of chemical weapons, to protect Washington's credibility - again an understandable objective though unlikely to reso nate much with Syrians. Quite apart from talk of outrage, deterrence and restoring U.S. credibility, the priority must be the welfare of the Syrian people. Whether or not military strikes are ordered, this only can be achieved through imposition of a sustained ceasefire and widely accepted political transition. To precisely gauge in advance the impact of a U.S. military attack, regardless of its scope and of efforts to carefully calibrate it, by definition is a fool's errand. In a conflict that has settled into a deadly if familiar pattern - and in a region close to boiling point - it inevitably will introduce a powerful element of uncertainty. Consequences almost certainly will be unpredictable. Still, several observations can be made about what it might and might not do: A military attack will not, nor can it, be met with even minimal international consensus; in this sense, the attempt to come up with solid evidence of regime use of chemical weapons, however necessary, also is futile. Given the false pretenses that informed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq and, since then, regional and international polarisation coupled with the dynamics of the Syrian conflict itself, proof put forward by the U.S. will be insufficient to sway disbelievers and skepticism will be widespread. It might discourage future use of chemical weapons by signaling even harsher punishment in the event of recidivism - an important achievement in and of itself. Should the regime find itself fighting for its survival, however, that consideration might not weigh heavily. Elements within the opposition also might be tempted to use such weapons and then blame the regime, precisely in order to provoke further U.S. intervention. It could trigger violent escalation within Syria as the regime might exact revenge on rebels and rebel-held areas, while the opposition seeks to seize the opportunity to make its own gains. Major regional or international escalation (such as retaliatory actions by the regime, Iran or Hizbollah, notably against Israel) is possible but probably not likely given the risks involved, though this could depend on the scope of the strikes. Military action, which the U.S. has stated will not aim at provoking the regime's collapse, might not even have an enduring effect on the balance of power on the ground. Indeed, the regime could register a propaganda victory, claiming it had stood fast against the U.S. and rallying domestic and regional opinion around an anti-Western, anti-imperialist mantra. Ultimately, the principal question regarding a possible military strike is whether diplomatic efforts to resolve the conflict can be reenergized in its aftermath. Smart money says they will not: in the wake of an attack they condemn as illegal and illegitimate, the regime and its allies arguably will not be in a mood to negotiate with the U.S. Carefully calibrating the strike to hurt enough to change their calculations but not enough to prompt retaliation or impede diplomacy is appealing in theory. In practice, it almost certainly is not feasible. Whether or not the U.S. chooses to launch a military offensive, its responsibility should be to try to optimize chances of a diplomatic breakthrough. This requires a two-fold effort lacking to date: developing a realistic compromise political offer as well as genuinely reaching out to both Russia and Iran in a manner capable of eliciting their interest - rather than investing in a prolonged conflict that has a seemingly bottomless capacity to escalate. In this spirit, the U.S. should present - and Syria's allies should seriously and constructively consider - a proposal based on the following elements: It is imperative to end this war. The escalation, regional instability and international entanglement its persistence unavoidably stimulates serve nobody's interest. The only exit is political. That requires far-reaching concessions and a lowering of demands from all parties. The sole viable outcome is a compromise that protects the interests of all Syrian constituencies and reflects rather than alters the regional strategic balance; The Syrian crisis presents an important opportunity to test whether the U.S. and the Islamic Republic of Iran can work together on regional issues to restore stability; A viable political outcome in Syria cannot be one in which the current leadership remains indefinitely in power but, beyond that, the U.S. can be flexible with regards to timing and specific modalities; The U.S. is keen to avoid collapse of the Syrian state and the resulting political vacuum. The goal should thus be a transition that builds on existing institutions rather than replaces them. This is true notably with respect to the army; Priority must be given to ensuring that no component of Syrian society is targeted for retaliation, discrimination or marginalisation in the context of a negotiated settlement. Such a proposal should then form the basis for renewed efforts by Lakhdar Brahimi, the joint United Nations/Arab League envoy, and lead to rapid convening of a Geneva II conference. Debate over a possible strike - its wisdom, preferred scope and legitimacy in the absence of UN Security Council approval - has obscured and distracted from what ought to be the overriding international preoccupation: how to revitalise the search for a political settlement. Discussions about its legality aside, any contemplated military action should be judged based on whether it advances that goal or further postpones it.

Fmr British Amb Murray: "John Kerry’s “evidence” is the shabbiest of tricks, built upon Mossad fabricated intercepts"

"... "Mossad have nothing comparable to the Troodos operation. The reported content of the conversations fits exactly with key tasking for Troodos, and would have tripped all the triggers. How can Troodos have missed this if Mossad got it? The only remote possibility is that all the conversations went on a purely landline route, on which Mossad have a physical wire tap, but that is very unlikely in a number of ways - not least nowadays the purely landline route. Israel has repeatedly been involved in the Syrian civil war, carrying out a number of illegal bombings and missile strikes over many months. This absolutely illegal activity by Israel- which has killed a great many civilians, including children - has brought no condemnation at all from the West. Israel has now provided “intelligence” to the United States designed to allow the United States to join in with Israel’s bombing and missile campaign. The answer to the Troodos Conundrum is simple. Troodos did not pick up the intercepts because they do not exist. Mossad fabricated them. John Kerry’s “evidence” is the shabbiest of tricks. More children may now be blown to pieces by massive American missile blasts. It is nothing to do with humanitarian intervention. It is, yet again, the USA acting at the behest of Israel. " 

WaPo: "In trying to help Syria, an intervention would destroy it"

"... Assad would remain defiant in the face of an attack. It is not as if he is constrained now, but he would probably step up the violence both to exert control within his country and to demonstrate that the United States and its allies cannot intimidate him. At the same time, the regime’s Iranian patrons and Hezbollah supporters would increase their investment in the conflict, meaning more weapons and more fighters pouring into Syria — resulting in more atrocities. And on the other side, Syrian opposition groups would welcome a steady stream of foreign fighters who care more about killing Alawites and Shiites than the fate of the country. This environment would heighten Syria’s substantial sectarian, ethnic and political divisions, pulling the country apart.
The formidable U.S. armed forces could certainly damage Assad’s considerably less potent military. But in an astonishing irony that only the conflict in Syria could produce, American and allied cruise missiles would be degrading the capability of the regime’s military units to the benefit of the al-Qaeda-linked militants fighting Assad — the same militants whom U.S. drones are attacking regularly in places such as Yemen. Military strikes would also complicate Washington’s longer-term desire to bring stability to a country that borders Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan and Israel.
Unlike Yugoslavia, which ripped itself apart in the 1990s, Syria has no obvious successor states, meaning there would be violence and instability in the heart of the Middle East for many years to come...."

Obama risks embarrassing loss in Congress

"... But there are military and political risks in the process.... 
Politically, Obama could emerge as a weakened leader, finding it even more difficult to push his proposals through Congress, including his top priorities of passing a budget and rewriting the nation’s immigration laws.
“Ultimately, I think he felt he was going to be a target from both the left and the right if he did it alone, and with few significant allies overseas, I don’t think he wanted to be isolated,” said Lee Miringoff, director of the Marist Institute for Public Opinion at Marist College in New York. “This puts the ball in Congress’s court and they either join and he gets policy and political cover or they oppose.”..."

Bassem Youssef (Egypt's John Stewart): "S---w America; S---w Obama; S---w Syria's Muslim Brotherhood; S---w Qatar & Qaradawi ... Long Live Syria you sons of bitches!"

Options

باسم يوسف | CBC · 823,049 like this

17 hours ago · 

• انا بتاسف على الشتيمة اللى هقولها ...
  
  بس ميتين ام امريكا على ميتين ام اوباما على ميتين ام اخوان سوريا على ميتين ام القرضاوى على ميتين ام قطر وتحيا سوريا يا ولاد الكلب !!!
  
  ادمن