$0.00 donated in past month
Obama's War on Syria Based on Lies
Obama's War on Syria Based on Lies
by Stephen Lendman
All wars are based on lies. Claims about Syrian forces using chemical weapons are false. They're malicious.
They're bald-faced lies. They're repeated anyway. John Kerry wrongfully accused Syria of using chemical weapons.
It's "undeniable," he claimed. It's "a moral obscenity." He'll provide evidence, he said. He has none. It's invented. Don't expect him to explain.
Vice president Biden lied, saying:
"There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons, the Syrian regime."
"Chemical weapons have been used. Everyone acknowledges their use."
"No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria."
"We know the Syrian regime is the only ones who have the weapons."
"They've used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, they have the means to deliver those weapons, and they're determined to wipe out the places attacked by the chemical weapons."
Assad "must be held accountable."
No evidence suggests Syrian forces used chemical weapons any time throughout months of conflict. Plenty points fingers the right way.
Insurgents used them multiple times. They've been caught red-handed. They're responsible for last Wednesday's Ghouta incident.
Don't expect Obama officials to explain. Doing it compromises their regime change plans. They're longstanding. They haven't changed.
August 28 marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech. It's getting widespread media coverage.
His April 4, 1967 "Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence" address is ignored. It was delivered one year to the day before his state-sponsored assassination.
He called America "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." It's "on the wrong side of a world revolution," he said.
"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence, or violent co-annihilation."
"We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight."
Silence is "betrayal." He called war in Vietnam "an enemy of the poor."
"(I)t should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life (in) America today can ignore the present war. If America's soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam."
"This madness must cease....We must stop now....We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam."
He called for a "revolution of values, (including) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."
He ended quoting James Russell Lowell (1819 - 1891), saying:
"Once to every man and nation
Comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of truth and falsehood,
For the good or evil side...."
That time is now, said King. His dream's still unfulfilled 46 years later. Things are worse now than ever.
It bears repeating what previous articles stressed. We're living through the most perilous time in world history. America bears full responsibility.
King would be appalled. He'd be vocal. He'd denounce plans for more war. "(N)o one who has any concern for the integrity and life of America" can support militarism and violence, he said.
"A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death."
"God didn't call America to" wage war. We're "criminals," said King.
"We've committed more war crimes almost than any nation in the world, and I'm going to continue to say it."
"Our only hope (depends on) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism."
He condemned America as the world's most villainous nation. It's agenda is diabolical. It's on the cusp of again proving it.
On August 28, AP headlined "Momentum grows for military action against Syria," saying:
Washington and France said "they are in a position for a strike, while the (Syrian government) vowed to use all possible measures to repel it."
At the same time, a "growing chorus of Republican and Democratic lawmakers (demand) Obama seek congressional authorization for any strikes against the Assad regime."
Charles Heyman's a former British officer. He edits The Armed Forces of the UK. He said attacking Syria without Security Council authorization greatly complicates matters.
"It's clear the governments want some form of military operation, but if the Security Council doesn't recommend it, then the consensus is that it's plainly illegal under international law," he said.
"The only legal way to go to war is in self-defense and that claim is difficult to make."
At the same time, Heyman predicts a possible three-phase campaign:
• militarily encircling Syria by air and sea (already in place);
• strikes against high-value command and control targets and communication centers; and
• a "massive takedown of Syrian air defenses" before targeting artillery and armor.
He called successfully accomplishing all three phases "key to long-term success."
Italian Foreign Minister Emma Bonino said Rome won't back military action without SC authorization.
Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Berlin supports taking action.
Arab League members met in emergency session. On the one hand, they urged overcoming differences and agreeing on "deterrent" measures, saying:
"The council holds the Syrian regime totally responsible for this heinous crime and calls for all involved in the despicable crime to be given a fair international trial like other war criminals."
On the other, The New York Times said it opposes a retaliatory strike. Members are deeply divided.
"The vast majority of Arabs are emotionally opposed to any Western military action in the region no matter how humanitarian the cause," said The Times.
"In the region, only Turkey has pledged to support intervention."
On Monday, Saudi Arabia urged "deterrent" action. A statement said:
It "urges the international community represented by the UN Security Council to take up its responsibilities towards the tragedies and terrible massacres committed by the (Syrian) regime against its people using arms that include internationally banned chemical weapons."
A weekly cabinet meeting warned against "lack of a clear and firm decision that puts an end to these heinous massacres."
On August 27, DefenseOne.com headlined "US No Longer Seeking UN, NATO Permission to Strike Syria," saying:
Washington's "building a rapid coalition consisting of the United Kingdom, France and several Arab states."
An unnamed US official told Defense One:
"If action is taken, it probably won't be pursued through the UN or NATO."
"These aren't the only ways to undertake such action, and any response would be conducted pursuant to the law."
False! Only Security Council members can authorize military action. Only Congress can declare war. Constitutional law prohibits presidents from doing it unilaterally.
It doesn't stop them. December 8, 1941 was the last time Congress declared war. It did so on Japan. Other wars thereafter were illegal.
Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush and Obama acted extrajudicially.
Obama's readying to do it again. He's a war criminal multiple times over. He remains unaccountable. He plans more war based on lies.
He's ravaging one country after another. He wants Iran targeted and destroyed. He's incorrigible. He's lawless. He's out-of-control.
Impeaching him is a national imperative. He threatens to embroil the entire region. He menaces humanity. He risks WW III.
UN inspectors were scheduled to remain until Sunday. According to spokeswoman Alessandra Vellucci, more time may be needed.
White House spokesman Jay Carney lied, saying:
"Suggestions that there's any doubt about who's responsible for this are as preposterous as a suggestion that the attack did not occur."
"We have established with a high degree of confidence that the Syria regime has used chemical weapons already in this conflict."
"We have made clear that it is our firm assessment that the Syrian regime has maintained control of the stockpile of chemical weapons in Syria throughout this conflict."
"It is also the case that the Syrian regime has the rocket capacity to deliver the chemical weapons as they were delivered with repugnant results on August 21st outside of Damascus."
He added that response options are being considered. Other reports said tactics already were chosen. Obama signed off on them.
Cruise missile attacks may begin as early as Thursday. They'll last around two or three days. Sites are chosen. They include command and control and other military related targets.
British Prime Minister David Cameron recalled parliament. The world can't "stand idly by," he said. He called military action "legal, proportionate and specific." He lied saying so.
He said acting prevents further chemical attacks. He lied again. According to London's Telegraph:
He "made his case for military intervention against a backdrop of widespread public skepticism about the use of British military force in yet another foreign conflict, in the wake of those in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya."
According to Cameron:
"What we have seen in Syria are appalling scenes of death and suffering because of the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, and I don't believe we can let that stand."
Foreign Minister William Hague lied claiming failure to act harms Britain's security. He didn't explain how.
Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said "idly (standing by) set(s) a very dangerous precedent indeed."
Senior Tories hope Labor MPs will back Cameron. Parliament will vote later this week. It won't matter. Obama decided. So did Cameron. France is on board. So is Turkey.
According to the Telegraph, "planned intervention is understood to involve a weekend offensive." It may begin Friday.
At the same time, Cameron "retain(s) the right to act swiftly without the need to consult Parliament if circumstances required an urgent decision to approve the use of military force sooner."
In other words, he already decided to act. Parliamentary debate won't determine policy.
Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby warned against a "rush to judgment." It could have "unforeseeable ramifications across the whole Arab and Muslim world," he said.
"Some of Britain's most senior military figures, including Gen. Sir David Richards, a former chief of the defence staff, and Lord Dannatt, a former head of the Army, warned against taking action," said the Telegraph.
According to Richards:
"The scale of involvement to make a decisive difference in Syria would be so huge that it is something that we, at the moment, cannot sensibly contemplate."
Former Liberal Democrat leader Menzies Campbell said:
"We have recent experience of that in relation to the declaration of war against Saddam Hussein. Look at the way that turned out."
"MPs expressed concern that intervening in Syria could result in a repeat of Britain's involvement in Iraq," added the Telegraph.
Labor party leader Edward Miliband remains unconvinced about military action. He'll support it only if it's legal and limited.
British sources said Washington plans strikes by Friday or Saturday. They'll last two or three days.
On August 28, London's Guardian featured a spurious propaganda piece. It headlined "Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack.' "
It cites the IDF's 8200 unit. It specializes in electronic surveillance. An unnamed Mossad official claimed Syrian officials discussed using chemical weapons.
According to the Guardian:
"The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons - which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action - has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported."
What's lacking is credibility. According to Mossad-connected DEBKAfile (DF), "Assad may hit back at Israel for US strike, trusting Obama to tie Israel's hands against major reprisal."
"At least not in the initial stage," it added. Israeli strategists believe Assad will retaliate against Jordan.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem stressed friendly ties to the Hashmite kingdom, saying:
"We have no thought of acting against Jordan." He advised Amman not to believe otherwise.
He urged it not to sacrifice longstanding friendly relations. He knows it's involved in Washington's war.
DF said Saudi Arabia placed its Tabuk air base F-15 squadrons on alert. French Rafale bombers are based there.
Obama's limited action may exceed what's planned. According to DF, US and Israeli leaders "are keeping this prospect under their hats to avoid public panic."
On August 28, the Wall Street Journal headlined "US, Allies Prepare to Act as Syria Intelligence Mounts," saying:
US official claim "a flood of previously undisclosed intelligence, including satellite images and intercepted communications, erased any last administration doubts that the Syrian regime had used chemical weapons against its own people."
They lied saying so.
On August 28, Itar Tass headlined "Russia denies claims that Syrian government is to blame for chemical weapons use," saying:
John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov exchanged views. Moscow denies US claims.
Lavrov presented Russia's side. "He called for a meaningful and profound exchange of expert information on cases of chemical weapons use in Syria."
He won't get what he wants. The die is cast. Obama plans more aggressive war.
He's doing it based on lies. It's imminent. It could start any time.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen [at] sbcglobal.net.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.