Horrific scenes of dead and injured civilians in Syria have been a part of the conflict there over the past several years, but the reports of a chemical attack of some sort last week in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta have led U.S. policymakers and the Obama White House to threaten to attack in a matter of days.
There is still no firm public evidence that would tie these specific attacks to the Assad government. But all around the U.S. media the signs are clear that war is on the way. The front page of USA Today (8/27/13) displays U.S. bombs:
While on ABC‘s This Week (8/25/13) viewers saw a computer simulation of an attack from a U.S. warship:
One tendency in the corporate media seemed to be to jump to the conclusion that the chemical attacks were launched by the Assad regime, while admitting that perhaps this was not yet proven. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (8/27/13) wrote that “Obama has to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s homicidal regime with a military strike”–before admitting:
If it is true that the regime killed hundreds of civilians with nerve gas in a Damascus suburb last week–and Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons is “undeniable”–then Obama has no choice. Such use cannot be tolerated, and any government or group that employs chemical weapons must be made to suffer real consequences.
Of course, providing convincing evidence that the attacks actually were the work of the Syrian government should be the first order of business. But when news accounts, like one from USA Today (8/27/13), open with this–“A limited strike against Syria might convince the Assad regime not to use chemical weapons again”–it’s hard not reach the conclusion that some have already made up their minds. On CBS‘s Face the Nation (8/25/13), Reuters journalist David Rohde said: “There has to be a price for gassing hundreds of civilians. There has to be.”
So far, the U.S. government has mostly made emphatic assertions–often anonymously. In the August 26 New York Times, readers learned that “a senior Obama administration official said Sunday that there was ‘very little doubt’ that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians last week.”
The report, by Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, added:
The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”
The statement, released Sunday morning on the condition that the official not be named, reflected a tougher tone after President Obama’s meeting at the White House on Saturday with his national security team, during which advisers discussed options for military action.
It is curious that this “tougher tone” comes from officials whom the paper will not name.
John Kerry (cc photo: Ralph Alswang)
Today’s edition of the Times (8/27/13) gives readers the headline “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria.” Earlier versions of the piece were less definitive (the headline read “Kerry Accuses Syria of Chemical Weapons Attack”), and it was difficult to see just what the clear evidence was–other than the acknowledgment that some sort of chemical attack had occurred, which is hardly in dispute.
The paper went on to report:
In the coming days, officials said, the nation’s intelligence agencies will disclose information to bolster their case that chemical weapons were used by Mr. Assad’s forces. The information could include so-called signals intelligence–intercepted radio or telephone calls between Syrian military commanders.
If there is such evidence, one would assume it would be made public as soon as possible. Instead, unnamed officials are telling the New York Times that they’ll share it someday soon.
What would more skeptical coverage look like? Patrick Cockburn of the Independent (8/21/13) wrote that it is vital to be skeptical, since “the Syrian opposition has every incentive to show the Syrian government deploying chemical weapons in order to trigger foreign intervention.” Cockburn adds that there are plenty of reasons for the Syrian government to not launch a chemical weapons attack, but
the obvious fact that for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons would be much against their own interests does not prove it did not happen. Governments and armies do stupid things.
And people actually debate whether or not the agenda on all matters important to statists/elites stays the same no matter which party is elected? I understand wanting to have “hope”…but you’d have to check your brain at the door in order to be “hopeful” anymore given the long history of corrupt political duopoly in the US at this point. I said this would happen before Obama got elected the first time. How did I know? History…and Wesley Clark already told us it would as well (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw):
“Are we still going to war with Iraq?”
“Oh its worse than that. “
“I just got this down from upstairs [the secretary of defense’s office], this is a memo that describes how we are going to take out seven countries in five years – staring with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and finishing off, Iran.”
None of this is a secret. The only choice we have to explain Clark nailing this years and years ago is by choosing to accept it was/is a conspiracy or some grand coincidence. Please vote below.
Dear God,we have wasted so much human capital on warfare,greed,and power,the WORLD formed an international court of justice for individuals and countries and not just for the oligarchs,billionaires,and others selfish interest.Humanity has to move to the next level OR we perish ……….War is not the answer,as a republic we have to remind our servants who they REALLY work for.It is a crazy man that will destroy his own house………………….
“There has to be a price … ”
Payment due:
Hypocrisy and Legacy of Death Linger as US Claims Moral Authority in Syria
US slams “chemical weapons” in Syria while being a serial user of weapons widely condemned by the global community.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/08/27-3
Given the US history of genocide, starting from the earliest days and continuing through to the present, it astounds me that anything coming from the US government would have any “moral” force.
In the wake of depleted uranium, thousands of square miles of land rendered toxic by “our” oil and mining corporations in Africa , South America or anywhere where a forest, a river, poor people’s lives or a mountaintop stands in the way of corporate profit, the chaos unleashed in every country where “we” have intervened in the interest of “Democracy”, where does anybody get the idea that the US has any kind of moral standing?
The US doesn’t have a problem with chemical weapons per se, we gave ’em to Saddam to us against Iran. (Back before he got uppity).
The pundits will natter about what me must do about Assad’s crimes against humanity, but don’t expect a word about the chemical warfare being perpetrated in Nigeria, Ecuador, or here in the good ole USA in Cancer Alley or …
I, for one elite, have decided that if LESS than 150,000 innocent Syrians die, whatever we do will be worth it.
Unless the tide of public opinion turns against this, our newest, freshest war, in which case, clearly, I had my reservations from the outset.
Jack Y,
If this is really a two party duopoly, that had agreed to invade 7 countries in a row, then how did Obama, a person critical of Iraq, get elected? The plan was to elect someone once critical of the war, to sell the next war more plausibly? Really?
JoshSN…exactly, you nailed it. Although it wouldn’t have mattered if it had been McCain or Obama they both would have done what they are told by the money and political elite. You are familiar with advertising and PR I assume? Yes, they sell you one thing and give you something else. Why would you think politics is any different, especially given all the times in your adult life you’ve witnessed a politician say one thing and do another (as Obama has also done on numerous occasions already…he’s really gone after those banks that caused the ’08 crisis huh…or cracked down on draconian laws eliminating our privacy rights…etc. etc.).
But then your comment leaves an obvious question I would like you to answer…you are saying it is just a coincidence Gen. Clark stated those countries over and over and it just happened to turn out that way? It has to be one or the other doesn’t it…a coincidence Clark was so accurate or there is a conspiracy? You don’t think this war has been manufactured like Libya, or Iraq at all? You see no commonalities?
First of all, I don’t see the fuss about the difference between one type of weapon and the other. They are all evil to me. I see no difference between killing people with chemical weapons and drones.
Second, again Peter Hart tries to apologize for Syria as he does for Iran. So what if he uses chemical weapons. Didn’t the US and Israel use white Phosphorus (against international law) in Faluja and Gaza respectively? Or as someone mentioned, didn’t the US provide Saddam with nerve gas to use against Iranians? If I’m not mistaken, they even provided him GPS coordinates of Iranian soldiers! If using chemical weapons is bad, then it’s bad across the board. Personally, I think what the US has done around the world since its inception but esp. since WW2 is far more abominable than any country has done, even Germany.
Third, the US hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. If killing your own people is bad, then it should be bad for all US puppet regimes; that includes Bahrain and Saudi Arabia among many others.
The undoubted use of a chemical weapon
The toxic cloud of corpress complicity
It wasn’t a prediction though Josh…it was a plan Clark was informed of, warned about, and made public. That’s an apples and oranges type of difference here. What I am saying is that Clark noted the plan was launched following 9/11 starting back in late 2001. He notes specifically the countries that are on the list of targets for overthrow…not just policy changes or something like that…regime change. The agenda kicks ff under Bush II as Clark is making it public over the years at least beginning in 2004…long before Obama was even though of as a Presidential candidate. Clark didn’t “predict” these countries would be overthrown…he said it was a coordinated plan out of the Bush WH and DOD, State Dept., etc. and COINCIDENTALLY it continues through the Obama administration on track and this admin has arguably been more efficient in the geopolitical realignment targeting its fifth nation, Syria, now. Neocons…neoliberals…whatever. It’s that military industrial complex that Ike warned about so long ago that we are really discussing here.
I’m not arguing Clark is pious or something…this isn’t about Clark…it’s about the information of course and what it means with regard to our political “choices”…which are a mirage.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, then all your problems begin to look like nails. The “one trick pony” of the Corpse Press plays it’s one trick again. “We must go to war with _______ “.
Fill in the blank with the name of the country that your pissed at for the moment.
Same old story. It’s not hard to find the WMDs — Weapons of Mass Deception.
I remember when Bill Clinton destroyed via missile attack a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998. He used as a basis claims that agents had discovered a precursor to nerve gas in a soil sample from the site – claims that have never been verified, and indeed have been contradicted. Let the alleged evidence of a poison gas attack be studied by independent scientists. And of course there is also the question, should the evidence prove authentic, of where the gas attack came from and who ordered it.
This is Iraq all over again. Attacking a country based on faulty, incomplete and questionable intelligence is the epitome of irresponsible. I don’t understand the rush. Let’s take a breath, gather all the evidence and THEN make an INFORMED decision. But even then, we need to evaluate why chemical weapons are the “red line.” Thousands have died in Syria over the last 2 years at the hands of guns, bombs, missiles, etc. What difference do chemicals make? Dead is dead.
How does supporting the rebels increase AMERICA’S security? Since when have the long term goals of the Al Quaeda- and Hezbollah- backed Islamic extremists in rebel’s clothing become congruent with ours?
More important, why does Obama presume we can attack Syrian government assets and be immune from retaliation?
Obama assumes Assad’s retaliation will be “limited”…. and maybe Assad will limit it to New York City,San Francisco, or maybe my personal favorite, Washington , DC. Assad doesn’t need missiles or bombers, he needs teams of saboteurs with cash who can arrive clean and buy what they need to destroy buildings, derail freight trains carrying dangerous chemicals, etc.
Providing armed support to Al Quaeda, Hezbollah and assorted Islamic extremists (the folks burning Christian churches, homes and businesses) may get some of us killed.
The good news here is Joe Biden as tie breaker in the Senate has said that he would pursue an impeachment inditement against the president
Well the massive hypocrisy of listening to Joe Biden and Obama prior to being elected calling for impeachment of Bush for exactly the path they are now traveling is funny to be sure.That aside…I am glad they gave a cohesive intel briefing proving Assad’s guilt.I just don’t see why the rest of the world is not handling this.Why is it our job?As it is Obama has telegraphed every move making a limited strike damn near useless.There is no up side to an air attack.He has moved his chemical weapons.Time to take this to the world to condemn this regime.Use it to show the Russians and demand action on their part.This man is an animal.If we had a competent man in charge of our foreign policy we could use this to help reaffirm who these people are.What they are capable of.What Israel has to face daily.But Obama stumble badly at every turn.I feel as if Putin is playing 3 dimensional chess while Obama is playing checkers.
My vote is no, hell no! However, if you insist on going to war then go to war. Put boots on the ground and challenge both sides to cross the red line. Watergate John Michelle was once quoted as saying, “If your’re going eat shit, don’t do in in nibbles.” Let us not nibble our way into yet another BS war.
Have you ever wondered about just who controls the major media in the U.S.? No, I guess not. That is so un-politically correct that it is beyond your ability to conceive.
War is a Racket,
Let The People Vote On War Or Not, By Referendum. Rise Up.
The US media hype caused the death of thousands of native americans in the 1800s who were in their traditional way praying for a way out of the conditions forced among them by the shoot from the hip gringos.