Obama administration tries running Bush’s WMD play to beat war drums

August 31, 2013 | By | 3 Replies More


Continuing the many ways in which the Surveiller-in-Chief is resembling George W. Bush, Obama is now pushing for military action in Syria, using the retread justification of Weapons of Mass Destruction (gasp!).

Someone used chemical weapons in Syria on Wednesday, August 21st — that much seems to be clear. Secretary of State John Kerry argued that the Syrian government was not allowing access to the site by U.N. inspectors seeking to investigate, but reporters who bothered to check with the U.N. found that they had not requested access to the site until Saturday, 8/24 and the Syrian government granted the request the next day.  The reporter, Matthew Lee was quoted as saying

“It’s like everyone is telling Syria to let the police in, but the police didn’t knock on the door. The Syrian government can’t fulfill a request before it’s made. We don’t know what Syria would have said if the request was done on Thursday, but Kerry’s claim that they Syrians delayed is without merit. This episode does not make one question the Syrian ‘regime’s credibility’ as Kerry claims, but rather that of the U.S. and UN.”

So U.N. requests access on Saturday, Syria gives the OK on Sunday, and then the U.S. says “nevermind, it’s too late” and began pressuring the U.N. to abandon their investigation entirely.  The State department argues that fighting in the area had rendered any investigation moot, and that the evidence was surely destroyed so there is no point in looking for any.  U.N. inspectors disagree, saying that they can find evidence “up to several months” after the use of chemical weapons by taking samples from hair, blood, and urine of the victims.  But perhaps evidence (truth) would only get in the way of the storyline being crafted.


John Kerry, he’s pretty sure someone used chemical weapons

Missing from Kerry’s speech is any shred of evidence that might point the finger at the guilty party.  Kerry asserts that it was the Assad government, but again, there has not been a bit of evidence presented.  Simply averring that the weapons were used (by whom? doesn’t matter) seems to be enough for Kerry, and our compliant media has forgotten that the last time such weapons were used in Syria, it was the rebels who used them.

I can’t vouch for the authenticity of the photos, but there are plenty which appear to document chemical weapons in the hands of the rebel forces.  Please also remember that in 2012 a hacker released files from UK company Britam which advertises its management as having a “background in UK Special Forces”, has offices in Iraq and Libya (among others), and touts their expertise working in hostile environments on behalf of the oil and gas sector where “protection of people, assets and reputation is a constant and ever-changing challenge.”  The hacker leaked company emails, one of which apparently discusses a deal being pushed by Qatar and endorsed by the U.S. to create a false-flag chemical weapon attack in Syria, to be blamed upon Russia.  For what it’s worth, Britam acknowledges they were hacked but deny that the email is legitimate.  Which is exactly what you’d expect them to say in any case. [see update below]

Popular blogger Wartard phrased it like this:

 Assad by all accounts is not a stupid man. He attended Western universities. He’s a trained eye doctor. This at least means he’s not a total idiot. Why then would he use nerve gas at a time when the rebel factions aligned against him are fracturing, fighting amongst themselves and losing control of towns? Assad’s forces seem to have gained a slight initiative in this war and now suddenly, just as he begins winning, he breaks out chemical weapons and hands NATO the golden invitation to walk into his country?

It’s amazing to me that anyone treats the U.S. claims with any credibility to begin with.  The very same day as Kerry’s speech, news broke that the U.S.  had assisted Saddam Hussein in his use of chemical weapons during Iraq’s war with Iran. Our outrage at their use then was substantially less robust than it is now, let me tell you. Once our friend Hussein had become our enemy, fabricated claims about weapons of mass destruction (gasp!) led us to a decade long occupation and an ongoing civil war in Iraq, and the achievement of no discernable objectives other than removal of Hussein.  For a reminder of just how certain American officials were about Hussein’s WMD, here’s Colin Powell’s transcript of lies before the U.N. as a refresher.

The U.N. is not even clear on just what the alleged casualties from the Syrian chemical weapons attack might be.  Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi was quoted as saying “With what has happened on the 21st of August last week, it does seem that some kind of substance was used that killed a lot of people: hundreds, definitely more than a hundred, some people say 300, some people say 600, maybe 1,000, maybe more than 1,000 people.”   Well, that about nails it, I guess.  Something was done by somebody, and it killed some people.  That’s what we are about to go to war over?  Brahimi continued:

“What we have been told is that this evidence that the Americans, the British, the French say they have is going to be shared with us. It hasn’t been until now,” he said. “And we will be very, very, very interested in hearing from them what this evidence they have is.”

Yes, I would also be very, very, very interested.  Kerry seems to have suggested in his speech that reluctance to investigate marks a guilty party, so what does that say now that the U.S. appears to be blocking the very investigation they claim to desire?

Continuing the contempt for Congress, the U.N., the American people, and the Constitution, Obama seems prepared to launch military action without approval from any of those parties.  When one really examines the situation, it becomes clear that the military option seems to be on the table as a face-saving measure for Obama.  Claiming the use of chemical weapons violates his “red line”, he now appears ready to lash out without even waiting for the evidence.  The punditocracy is giddy with the prospect, claiming that the “credibility” (LOL!) of the U.S. is on the line.  Juan Cole, professor of Middle East history at University of Michigan, provides a typical example:

“This is more about Washington saving face, it seems to me, than it is a consequential intervention in the Syrian conflict. When you’re in a position where it is assumed that the United States must do something, a couple of Tomahawks make a statement.”


Proposed Arab gas pipeline. Guess which country is in the way of the third phase.

A couple final points.  Always remember that the U.S. is supporting the al-Qaeda-affiliated rebels in this fight.  Whenever you hear the word “rebels” used in the Syrian context, replace it with “al-Qaeda”.  In what world does it make sense to arm and train the very enemy we are fighting in another theater?   Indeed, Dennis Kucinich said this week that U.S. airstrikes on Syria would turn the U.S. military into “al Qaeda’s air force.”  I know it’s common to accuse whistleblowers of treason these days, but treason used to mean something.  Namely, aiding one’s enemies in a time of war.  Or specifically, from U.S. code:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

Attacking the Syrian government would thus become a clear case of treason on the part of Obama and anyone in Congress who supports such a move.

Lastly, please consider the role of energy in the geo-political landscape.  ZeroHedge has a powerfully convincing analysis which posits that pipeline politics are behind the sudden escalation in Syria over the past few years, just as was arguably the case in Afghanistan.

Such a pipeline would bypass Russia’s current stranglehold on gas supplies to Europe, so it neatly explains their unwillingness to go along with the U.S. ouster of Assad. Russia also worries that victory by the al-Qaeda and Muslim brotherhood rebels would embolden islamic fundamentalists that are causing the Russians headaches in Chechnya and elsewhere.


UPDATE: It appears that the hacked emails from Britam are not legitimate, based on a review of the header information.  Lots of disinformation swirling about from all parties.



Category: American Culture, Corporatocracy, War, Warmongering

About the Author ()

is a full-time wage slave and part-time philosopher, writing and living just outside Omaha with his lovely wife and two feline roommates.

Comments (3)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Erich Vieth says:


    I posted a link to your article on Facebook. Here is a response:

    The Syrian “rebels” are not synonymous with Al Qaeda, they are not even all jihadi. This BBC guide is detailed and helpful – http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218.

    The Assads, father and son, have led a regime which imposes the will of a minority (the Alawites, with Christian and Shia support) on the majority and they have been committing war crimes against their own people for decades – http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

    There are nasty elements in the opposition, strengthened versus the moderates by the lack of real commitment on the part of the west, but there doesn’t seem to me to be any doubt about the will of the majority in Syria – they want the regime to go.

    In most of the Arab world Sunni’s live under dictatorship. When democratic movements try to overturn this (Egypt recently or Algeria in the nineties) the west has sided with their overthrow.

    I don’t like the Muslim Brotherhood but if we continue to stand against democratic Sunni movements we seem to be encouraging those who believe that their only recourse is terrorism.

    Supporting the will of the Syrian people is not supporting Al Qaeda – it undermines them…

    Guide to the Syrian opposition http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15798218
    More than two years after the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad began in Syria, the opposition remains fractious and deeply divided.

  2. Brynn Jacobs says:

    While granting that there are disparate and contradictory elements involved in the Syrian rebels, it remains indisputable that one of the largest factions of seasoned fighters are those affiliated with al-Qaeda that sense an opportunity in Syria. As your facebook commenter notes, the opposition is seeking to overthrow a mostly secular Syrian regime. What they miss is that the al-Qaeda faction (along with the Muslim brotherhood, and others) seeks to replace the secular Assad government with an Islamic government, which does nothing to promote the cause of freedom and democracy in the region, all rhetoric notwithstanding.

    • Larry J. Carter says:

      The precedent was set much earlier. Pelosi is now alleging that we are not enforcing the threats of the President but some kind of “standard” from history.

      Although the supposed rationale for US attack on Syria to avenge claimed civilian deaths by government gas attacks, the hypocritical US government has used similar weapons openly as recently as the FBI/ATF attack on the Branch Davidian compound near Waco Texas in the spring of 1993.

      The 76 men, women and children were totally surrounded, posed no threat to others, and responded with weapons fire only after the ATF/FBI attacked with military style firearms. After the initial government assault was repelled, and after a long standoff, an impatient President Clinton and his Attorney General Janet Reno ordered an all-out military assault on the compound, despite the fact that the only legal justification was a single warrant for David Koresh on unproven charges. The presence of innocent group members was ignored, nor was there any planning for medical aid or fire suppression.

      In the run up to the Iraq invasion and now with Syria, United States officials loudly wailed about these regimes “killing civilians” with poison gas. While some of the Davidian victims were shot, most died from burns or asphyxiation as a result of the CS gas and the subsequent firestorm created when it was ignited deliberately.

      So precedent is clear: the US Empire can use poison gas against peaceful religious dissenters when they do not immediately surrender to heavily armed police forces using military weapons. This is lied about, rationalized and ultimately forgotten, with the dead victims being blamed for their “suicidal actions.”

      Other nations engaged in civil wars are regarded by the US Empire as guilty of “genocide” with the flimsiest of “secret evidence” of poison gas use cited as justification for military attack. Thus far American citizens have not been made privy to this supposed evidence or its source, and the assumption is always made for us that the people “our “ government wants to remove from power are the culprits.

      “A fool decides a matter before he has heard it.”

Leave a Reply