The American war on Syria looks like it may be getting delayed a little bit, with President Obama saying that he’s made his decision to attack and that the Pentagon has told him they’re ready to start firing missiles at Syria at any time.
At the same time, Obama insisted the attack was “not time-sensitive” and that he could attack today, tomorrow, or even a week or month from now. The big surprise, however, was that he said he will seek Congressional authorization for the war.
The administration has repeatedly insisted they don’t need Congress to start a war, and Obama reiterated that claim today, saying he absolutely has the authority to attack Syria on his own, but that he believes the “nation will be stronger” with a Congressional debate.
Obama gave no indication that Congress would be brought back into session early, however there has been some hint of willingness from the Senate (and not the House), and without that the debate would have to wait until at least September 9, a week from Monday. Though Congress is expected to be hotly divided on the war, the administration presumably wouldn’t have asked for a vote if they didn’t believe they’d win it, particularly after Britain’s involvement in the war was stalled by its parliament.
Assuming that that none of this changes, and assuming the president doesn’t intend to start the war and then seek authorization after the fact, that would delay the start of the attacks through the next week and into the early part of the following week.
Head up rump much ? did a cat claw his tender areas, and knock some sense into him ?
As many have pointed out, an attack on Syria could trigger unforeseen and disastrous consequences. Why would Obama (i.e., his handlers) want to put the American people in such a risky situation. According to polls, the American people do not support an attack on Syria.
But I think few Americans understand how important a role AIPAC (which should be registered as 'agent of a foreign government') plays in guiding U.S. foreign policy and our media (etc.). Why would it be important to Americans that Israel land grab and rule the Middle East (in its sights now, Syria, Iran and Lebanon)? Why should their lives and hard-earned tax dollars support it? Contrary to public opinion, we do not even get most of our oil from that region. Charley Reese RIP put it in perspective with this still wholly relevant 'pop quiz': http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=12955. In addition to supporting Israel's agenda, there are related reasons "elite" of the U.S. and U.K. are motivated to invade Syria in violation of national and international law, those reasons explored (link below) by Paul Craig Roberts, an informed, brilliant, and acclaimed American with the honor and courage to publicly expose 'the real deal' he sees.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/08/26/syria-…
If AIPAC, corporations and the banksters were held accountable, would there be a sane turnaround in the apparent rush to global annihilation?
Want to hold them accountable? When elections come, do not vote for the candidates that have lots of money. And do not vote for the candidates that say "they support Israel".
Time for a Constitutional Amendment.
In addition to the three branches of government we need to add the Stem that feeds the branches (lobbyists), the Roots that feed the Stem (corporations and special interests) and last and definitely least the Fertilizer (the electorate) who provide the BS to keep the system afloat.
Or instead we could just pay attention and use our vote sensibly?
Nah. Too much effort.
Vote sensibly? Really? I thought that's what we did when we didn't vote for Mittens.
An attack on Syria will trigger perfectly predictable results: Lots of dead innocents and lots of profits for US weapon makers. The usual tactic. The US public can do nothing, even they do care, which they seem not to.
Obama and the US Congress do as they're told. The "delay" which was caused by the surprising display of backbone the UK parliament has forced Obama to copy it, though the result will be different: A "legal" declaration of war against the innocent Syria population. Appalling hypocrisy that even a child can see through.
believes the “nation will be stronger” with a Congressional debate. Press tidbit I also heard days ago: ~"the American people need to understand why we're doing this." Both might as well read that low-lifes need Americans brainwashed if possible, pacified otherwise, and some delay and standard foreplay might benefit said low-lifes.
Notice how press loves to bring up the memory of Iraq, the slow motion train wreck, as the wet blanket. Why not Libya, the sudden train wreck, and all the others? My theory is that the psychological role of Iraq has long been understood as the-one-it's-ok-to-feel-bad-about (compare to the idea of Limited Hangout). E.g., General W. Clark on Afghanistan: ~"I felt good about that. We shoulda. But–" –well, there's yer establishment role-model. If all resistance to a current war is attributed to singular, easy, agreeable things –if the resistance gets a standard Straw Man –then the debate is framed just how they like it. Ideally for them all resistance to a current war would reduce to traumatized-by-Bush; soon to be a recognized-medical-condition. Actually, US war is fraud, the 'case' for war with Syria is already an especially good example to teach from.
Say, did I mention they 'fell' STRAIGHT down? Think of the medical condition it'd take to buy a war after that!
"the administration presumably wouldn’t have asked for a vote if they didn’t believe they’d win it"
It looks the opposite to me. It looks like victory for the antiwar cause.
I think Obama looked around after the UK, Jordan, and the Arab League bailed on him, when even Turkey was not on board, and when both parties here were on him, and he decided this was just not going to work. He bailed.
He's going to let Congress take the hits of criticism from both sides, let the Republicans tear themselves apart, and walk away from this bad idea.
He can't go to war without support, and a handful of neocons is not support.
This should frighten Netanyahu. He knows he's got the Congress in his pocket, but now he knows the President might very well not attack Iran, nor does Obama have to give an Iran attack option to Congress. That pleases me even more than the back down on attacking Syria.
Syrian rebels “say Saudis gave them chemical weapons.”
August 31, 2013 — Leave a comment
An article published by Mint Press News, written by Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, reports that Syrians on the ground in Gouta and Damascus report chemical weapons were used by the rebels.
http://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2013/08/31/s…
Note from the Antiwar.com editors:
The Mint Press News article on rebels and chemical weapons appears to be bogus. Dale Gavlak, the AP reporter listed as co-author says she did not write the article and did not contribute to the report: http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/09/20/retraction-and…
Starting war without congressional approval Obama may face impeachment.
This didn't happen with Libya and it wouldn't happen with Syria.
Incidentally, haven't we already been at war with Syria for some time now? All we're talking about here is overt use of US military force.
Same procedure as every year:
”Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957:
In order to facilitate the action of liberative (sic) forces, …a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. …[to] be accomplished early in the course of the uprising and intervention, …
Once a political decision has been reached to proceed with internal disturbances in Syria, CIA is prepared, and SIS (MI6) will attempt to mount minor sabotage and coup de main (sic) incidents within Syria, working through contacts with individuals. …Incidents should not be concentrated in Damascus …
Further : a “necessary degree of fear .. frontier incidents and (staged) border clashes”, would “provide a pretext for intervention… the CIA and SIS [MI6] should use … capabilities in both psychological and action fields to augment tension.”(Joint US-UK leaked Intelligence Document, London and Washington, 1957)
Who Really Is Behind The Syrian Chemical Attacks?
By Tyler Durden
Global Research, August 31, 2013
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-really-is-behind…
UN: Rebels – Not Syrian Government – Used Chemical Weapons
UN investigator Carla Del Ponte said that there is strong evidence that the rebels used chemical weapons, but that there is not evidence that the government used such weapons. This is not surprising. Haaretz reported on March 24th, “Jihadists, not…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/un-rebels-not-syrian…
My prediction:
Some time between now and the time Congress takes up the question, another "MAJOR ATROCITY STORY" will hit the headlines, and Obama will launch the war while camping up an "I hope Congress will support me after the fact, because THERE IS NO TIME TO WAIT" approach.
And there's about a 90% chance that Congress will fold like a cheap suit and endorse his actions.
All of which are good reasons to oppose the legitimacy of this action apart from it constitutionality whether or not our congressbuffoons stamp their approval.
Any CON.gress critter who votes for war will be THROWN OUT–WE THE PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET–
If Syrian war is a civil war, then what is the business of USA government to ask for its senators to debate on the subjects and comeup with a militaristic solution or otherwise to solve the probelm? If the Syrian war is a civil war then it must be a domestic issue which needs to be solved by the parties involved, then again, what is the business of USA government to get involved militarily or otherwuse? Unless, Syrian war is not an domestic war and those whom are fighting the Syrian people are not Syrians, because and according to every ligitimate organization and creditable news agency, the majority of Syrian people 70% supporting their government and not those whom are fighting the Syrian people. Yet USA government, although they say that they are not supporting those religious-terrorists or otherwise groups that are entering Syrian territory from Turkey or traveling from Saudi Arabia or EU and UAE to fight the majority of Syria people, then, again, the questions of Syrian war becomes a domestic war by the Syrian people fighting the foriegn intruders, then again, what is the business of USA, or EU government or the their senators to discuss the matter, unless USA, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Turkish government, the French having their own geopolitical interests in the region which eliminates the argument by USA saying that they are not supporting terrorism or religious jihadist that are the foriegn enemies of the Syrian people; therefore Such support is directed at supporting those who supports these terrorists whic needs to be the issue for USA and EU senators to have debate on.
There wasn't any ethnic problems existed since or before 1993 occupying of Afghanistan or in Iraq or in Syria, the USA and EU militarism intervention made for such social tensions to start, as in Afghanistan or pakistan and etc. democracy was the hottest topics by the native intelectual and discussed by the people informing the world about the matter, again, it did become the USA and EU "interests" by dividing nations down their ethnic line to keep their interests by implementing ductatorial regimes which would guarantee USA , EU, Saudis and UAE interests. Although US government is not honest and never been, yet by Obama saying that: ethnics problems existed in that part of the world for generations, is nothing but another lie to justify a long time lies by US government.
The Syrian war is not a civil war, is a imposed war by Saudis, UAE, USA and EU, is a staged war and every elements in this war somehow connected to a foreign elements-government-country interests in the region; therefore, Syrian government should been given all the right to fight and defend Syrian people against forigen intruders, unless, USA and EU, so as the Saudis and UAE have opened their eyes and realized that their mercinarse losing the war where they need to stage another and more mouthful lies, about chemicals used by Syrian government, to start their another staged war in Middle East.
I don’t see why Obama wants to go to Congress- the Knesset has already approved U.S. military action.
President Obama cannot order the military to attack another country that is not a threat to the United States: it would be an illegal order. Where is the JCS? Why have they not addressed this subject. Will the DOD attack any nation on orders of the President? I am starting to wonder if we are living under the Constitution or not.. The JSC should be talking about this in public before the fact.
Same as Iraq, it was those of background as Baghdad thieves who claimed that Saddam Hussein posses nuclear weapon.., or what is called WMD., look at UN filmed document when general Powell present that little tub to the world describing it to be the "tub" which have the power to wipeout the world, now carefully look at John Negroponte seating beside then CIA chief, just behind Powell with (translators) headphone and as Powell explains the WMD tub, Negroponte reads from a file in front of him. Thus far nothing seams to be strange or wring but two thing,
1- why would John Negroponte having a UN translator head phone, doesn't he understand (English) what general Powell is saying and who is in other end and in what language "translating" what Powell is saying?
2-what is in that file that John Negroponte looking at, is it possible that: what John is looking at is a transcript of what general Powell needs to say to nail the request for invading Iraq, one obscured word here or there might jeopardize the goal of Bush, Saudis, UAE regime?
Syria government chemical attack is the same scenario, with evidence presented thus far, is same game played by what house. What is different is there is no Johan Negroponte in White House, but John Negroponte is replaced by John Kerry working for the same (US) government hegemony as John Negroponte. This has been another unjust and deceptive forigen policy for USA and EU to protect their dictatorial tyrants and friends.
Syrian Rebels admit to being behind Chemical Weapons Attack
According to the report, the chemicals were provided by Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who “has been at the very heart of the push for war by the U.S. against Assad.”
The group Doctors Without Borders went to the town of Ghouta, where more than 350 people were killed as a result of the chemical attack. After interviewing “numerous…doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families,” the group obtained testimony that the attack was a result of mismanagement and ignorance on the part of the rebels, who didn’t realize that they had chemical weapons.
more:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-rebels-admit-…
Israeli Intelligence News: Syria Rebels Possess Chemical Weapons, US-NATO Delivering Heavy Weapons to the Terrorists
The following report by the Israeli Intelligence news outlet Debka (quoting Turkish police sources) acknowledges that Al Nusrah rather than Syrian government forces have chemical weapons in their possession: Turkish police round up Al Qaeda-linked Syrian Al Nusra terrorists in…
more:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/israeli-intelligence…
US-NATO Supported Syria Rebels use Chemical Weapons against Government Forces
Militants fighting against the Syrian government have used chemical weapons against the army in Daraya near the capital, Damascus, military sources say. According to a commander of the Syrian Presidential Guard, at least seven Syrian soldiers were killed on Saturday…
more: http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-supported-sy…