|« Netanyahu Mocks Legitimate Governance||From North Dakota to Scotland: Exploring the Public Bank Option »|
(Washington, DC, 12/9) Here we go again.
A few days later, British Prime Minister David Cameron's foreign secretary claimed that he had evidence the Syrian government plans to use chemical weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against the rebels.
After Obama's December 3 warning, Syria denied any intent to use the weapons "no matter what the circumstances" as they had after an earlier Obama warning.
Does the government of President Bashar Assad intend to use chemical WMD?
We can't know for sure but a review of experts by McClatchy News came up with a consensus answer - not likely! Using chemical WMD would guarantee an overwhelming United States-NATO retaliation ending any chance the Assad regime has for political and actual survival. The experts noted that the claimed recent movement of the chemical stockpile does not necessarily support a plan for offensive use. Rather, moving the stockpile may well secure its capture by surging rebel forces with Al Qaeda fighters at the forefront.
Retired Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a harsh critic of current administration policies, categorically dismissed the WMD claims: "I would be highly skeptical of any of the intelligence rendered by the $140-billion-plus US intelligence community as to weapons of mass destruction in possession of another country" (RT December 8, 2012).
Robert Fisk, covering the Middle East for thirty years, was just as frank in assessment of the Obama - Cameron claims:
"...over the past week, all the usual pseudo-experts who couldn’t find Syria on a map have been warning us again of the mustard gas, chemical agents, biological agents that Syria might possess -- and might use. And the sources? The same fantasy specialists who didn’t warn us about 9/11 but insisted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction in 2003." The Independent, December 8
What's Up with Obama and the Brits?
Why would Obama and Cameron make these sketchy claims about a Middle East ruler that they want removed from power?
Could it be that the old Bush-Blair lies about Iraq's WMD are surfacing in a new form?
Will the announced threat of Syria's intent to use chemical WMD serve as the last best hope for a preemptive U.S. - NATO military action against the government of Syrian president Bashar Assad?
In 2002, Bush was apoplectic about Saddam Hussein's WMD program. Saddam planned to use WMD, the disgraced former president bellowed. The corporate media flew cover for Bush by pushing the fiction that Hussein was behind the 9/11 attacks and his WMD would be used for more of the same. The implication was clear - it could happen here!
At the same time, British Prime Minister Tony Blair's government published an intelligence report that supposedly confirmed Iraq's ability to use WMD. Bush then used the British intelligence to bolster his plan to invade Iraq.
The British intelligence dossier turned out to be a complete fraud. The dodgy dossier was plagiarized from paper by a graduate student posted on the internet. This theft of intellectual property plus other plagiarism was the best that Tony Blair's backroom could produce to justify an invasion based on Iraq's alleged possession of WMD. The corporate media, fully embedded in the Bush-Cheney cartel, said nothing. The strategy worked. Why not try it again?
Obama and Cameron tasted blood in Libya. In addition to the general death and destruction, NATO helped wipe out an entire city (well, two actually) and aided in the capture Muammar Gaddafi who was then tortured and murdered. The two leaders have a serious craving for more of their Libyan action. Syria is number one with a bullet for a hiked up military effort to show just how tough they are.
Those who write the history of our decline and fall will be astonished at the recycled bull shit offered up by the leaders of the world's most powerful nations at this most critical moment. Again and again, we're handed a package of lies gift-wrapped in smarmy insincerity. Ill intent is never in question. It's just the degree of death and damage that the lies portend.
What Does this Say about President Obama?
Those who think that Obama will show his true colors as an enlightened leader this time around are living in a fantasy world.
Obama is using the George W. Bush playbook to set up a U.S. military action against a sovereign state that poses no threat to the nation. The administration's involvement in Syria (and Libya as well) is both gratuitous and illegal according to Nuremberg Principle VI: (a) Crimes against peace. How enlightened is that?
How enlightened is it to spend a couple of hours a week, as Obama does, creating kill lists that order the deaths of administration designated terrorists in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. U.S. citizens so labeled who operate overseas experience the efficiency of moving from suspect to death sentence without the need for an arrest and trial. It's the Patriot Act on steroids.
How enlightened is it to focus on proxy wars and hit-man diplomacy while, at the same time, ignoring the U.N. Climate Change Conference (DOHA, 2012) that just ended?
Those who maintain hope that the president's policies will change from welfare for the financial elite and endless war should put requests for new priorities in their annual letter to Santa Claus. You're more likely to catch mommy kissing Santa in the back seat of the family Hummer than you are to see change on vital issues for the vast majority of citizens.
The alarm bells are ringing. We are ruled by clueless, indifferent, ego maniacs so wedded to their current status, they fear the urgently needed changes required to even maintain our society at its current functional level.
This article may be reproduced with attribution of authorship and a link to this article.
Your donation helps provide a place for people to speak out.
Not tax deductible. firstname.lastname@example.org
|Search the Site||Search the Web|
|<< <||> >>|