noam for the hour (Rebecca)

noam for the hour

amy goodman spent the hour with noam chomsky and here he is on barack’s tuesday night speech:

AMY GOODMAN: To talk more about President Obama’s speech and the crisis in Syria, we’re joined by the world-renowned political dissident, linguist, author,MIT Professor Noam Chomsky. He has authored numerous books. His latest is On Western Terrorism: From Hiroshima to Drone Warfare, that’s out next week. He joins us via Democracy Now! video stream from his home in Massachusetts.
Noam, welcome to Democracy Now! First, let’s get your response to President Obama announcing last night in a nationwide address, which I’m sure was watched worldwide, that for the moment there would be no strike on Syria, as the U.S. supports the Russian plan to deal with the chemical weapons stockpile of Syria?
NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the Russian plan is a godsend for Obama. It saves him from what would look like a very serious political defeat. He has not been able to obtain virtually any international support for this—the action he’s contemplating. Even Britain wouldn’t support it. And it looked as though Congress wasn’t going to support it either, which would leave him completely out on a limb. This leaves him a way out.
He can maintain the threat of force, which incidentally is a crime under international law, that we should bear in mind that the core principle of the United Nations Charter bars the threat or use of force, threat or use of force. So all of this is criminal, to begin with, but he’ll continue with that. The United States is a rogue state. It doesn’t pay any attention to international law.
He—it was kind of interesting what he didn’t say. This would be a perfect opportunity to ban chemical weapons, to impose the chemical weapons convention on the Middle East. The convention, contrary to what Obama said, does not specifically refer just to use of chemical weapons; it refers to production, storage or use of chemical weapons. That’s banned by the international norm that Obama likes to preach about. Well, there is a country which happens to be—happens to have illegally annexed part of Syrian territory, which has chemical weapons and is in violation of the chemical weapons convention and has refused even to ratify it—namely, Israel. So here’s an opportunity to eliminate chemical weapons from the region, to impose the chemical weapons convention as it’s actually formulated. But Obama was very careful not to say that he—for reasons which are too obvious to go into—he—and that gap is highly significant. Of course, chemical weapons should be eliminated everywhere, but certainly in that region.
The other things that he said were not unusual, but nevertheless kind of shocking to anyone not familiar with U.S. political discourse, at least. So he described the United—he said that for seven decades the United States has been “the anchor of global security.” Really? Seven decades? That includes, for example, just 40 years ago today, when the United States played a major role in overthrowing the parliamentary democracy of Chile and imposing a brutal dictatorship, called “the first 9/11” in Latin America. Go back earlier years, overthrowing the parliamentary system in Iran, imposing a dictatorship; same in Guatemala a year later; attacking Indochina, the worst crime in the postwar period, killing millions of people; attacking Central America; killing—involved in killing—in imposing a dictatorship in the Congo; and invading Iraq—on and on. That’s stability? I mean, that a Harvard Law School graduate can pronounce those words is pretty amazing, as is the fact that they’re accepted without comment.
So what he said is I’m going to lie like a trooper about history; I’m going to suppress the U.S. role, the actual U.S. role, for the last seven decades; I’m going to maintain the threat of force, which is of course illegal; and I’m going to ensure that the chemical weapons convention is not imposed on the region, because our ally, Israel, would be subjected to it. And I think those are some of the main points of his address.

i do rag on noam from time to time but, as c.i. noted a little while back, noam was the 1st prominent left name to speak out against an attack on syria.

so good for noam.

remember that you can read the interview in full, listen to it or watch the video.

let’s close with c.i.’s ‘Iraq snapshot:’

Wednesday, September 11, 2013.  Chaos and violence continue, a moat in Iraq gets attention, we look at Barack’s Syria speech and reactions to it, and more. 

Today is the 12th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks.  US Senator Patty Murray’s office released the following today:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                                            CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Wednesday, September 11, 2013                                                                               (202) 224-2834
Senator Murray’s Statement on the 12thAnniversary of 9/11 Attacks
“Like all Americans, I will never forget where I was twelve years ago and the way our nation responded in the face of great tragedy. On that day, no matter our differences, our region, race, religion, or political party – we were all one thing: Americans.
“Today we not only honor the service and lives of the thousands of heroes who perished that day, and in the decade since, but we also reflect on the shared selflessness and dedication to the common good that was born out of that difficult time. On that September morning we all came to understand how fragile life can be and then immediately lined up to donate our time, money, and even our blood to help strangers.
“So as we mark this somber occasion, I encourage all Americans to find a way to channel that sense of community on this National Day of Service and Remembrance by giving back to those in need. Let’s recommit to making our nation a better place for our children and let the examples of these men and women always inspire and guide us.”
To get involved, visit for opportunities in your community.
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834



RSS Feed for Senator Murray’s office

Alsumaria reports that Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs welcomes Russia’s initiative to ease the tensions (with regards to the US march to war on Syria) by supervising any chemical weapons and putting them under international supervision.

At 9:00 pm EST yesterday, US President Barack Obama gave a nationally broadcast speech begrudgingly acknowledging the Russian effort.  From last night’s speech (link is transcript with video option on the far right):

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.  But these things happened.  The facts cannot be denied. The question now is what the United States of America, and the international community, is prepared to do about it.  Because what happened to those people — to those children — is not only a violation of international law, it’s also a danger to our security.

Let me explain why.  If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons.  As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.  Over time, our troops would again face the prospect of chemical warfare on the battlefield.  And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

 First off, allegations are not “facts.”  As Revolution newspaper notes, “Whether the deaths were the result of chemical weapons and, if so, whether the attack was launched by the Syrian government or by rebel forces, has not been independently verified. U.S. Secretary of State Kerry initially demanded that the Syrian government allow UN investigators into the area, but then when the Syrian regime responded that it would give inspectors unlimited access, Reuters reported that: ‘[A] U.S. official said such an offer was “too late to be credible” and Washington was all but certain that the government of President Bashar al-Assad had gassed its own people’.”  Alex Lantier and Joe Kishore (WSWS) also note Barack’s ‘facts’ were assertions,  “Without providing a scintilla of probative evidence, Obama repeated claims that the Syrian government of Bashar Al-Assad was responsible for a chemical weapons attack on August 21. Obama tried to bolster this assertion with various unsubstantiated assertions, combined with lurid images of the victims of the attack.”

Lurid images from YouTube videos.  As a US Senator was explaining to me of Senator Dianne Feinstein’s idiotic support of war on Syria, Dianne’s seeing YouTube videos, these are sparkly, new things to her.  This is the woman who, after all, was born three years before Charlie Chaplin made his silent film masterpiece Modern Times, she was born the year silent film star (and producer, director and writer) Mary Pickford announced her film retirement. Talkies, color pictures, black and white TVs, color TV productions, satellite TV, now streaming, it’s all been such a long and crazy trip for Dianne who, at 80-years-old, is the oldest member of the US Senate.  Could whomever cuts her food for her show her the door to gracefully leave the Senate or are we next to see her with drool on her face during Senate hearings?  Or, worse, someone has to explain to her that “40 Days of Dating” is staged.  (“But I saw it on the computer thing!” Dianne insists.)

Margaret Kimberley (Black Agenda Report) points out the larger problems with Barack and Secretary of State John Kerry’s ‘intell’:

Evidence of sketchy claims and lack of support for them came very early on in the propaganda process. The president and secretary of state made their initial appeal by claiming there would be no “boots on the ground.” The horrendously Orwellian phrase was meant to give them cover from criticism and get hesitant congress members on board. But when asked at a Senate hearing, Kerry hedged. “ I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to a president of the United States to secure our country.” The so-called gaffes were constant. When a reporter asked if the United States would be amenable to forsaking an attack if Assad gave up weapons, Kerry initially said it would be acceptable.
“Sure, if he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community, in the next week, turn it over. All of it, without delay and allow a full and total accounting for that, but he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”
The White House and State Department back pedaled furiously from Kerry’s comment. His own spokesperson said that the secretary “was not making a proposal.” The evil doers had exposed themselves as the aggressors that they are. They admitted to the world community that the stated reason for going to war is a sham and that there is nothing Assad can do to call off the dogs. Even if a diplomatic process begins, the United States and the other NATO nations will try something else to bring about the regime change that they claim not to want in Syria.

On the subject of the information and intelligence:

The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University. ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O’Bagy’s employment, effective immediately.

Who is she?  Leslie Larson (New York Daily News) explains who and how she figures into the Syrian debate, “A Syria expert at a U.S. think tank, whose research was cited by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain during Senate testimony, has been fired for lying about having a Ph.D.”   Greg Myer (NPR) explains her conflicts were more than lying about a degree, “In an interview on Fox News and in other appearances, she came under criticism for serving as a both an independent analyst at her institute and for working on a contractual basis with an advocacy group that supports the Syrian opposition, the Syrian Emergency Task Force. That group subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition.”

Poor John Kerry, he really has become the joke of the administration.  

Along with offering ‘facts’ that were not facts, Barack also made an illogical assertion.  How do you claim that you have a right to break international law in order to enforce international custom?

IPS analyst Phyllis Bennis has repeatedly explained how the law works.  We’ll include her speaking to Peter Hart on FAIR’s Counterspin two Fridays ago:

Phyllis Bennis:  Only if the [United Nations] Security Council votes to endorse the use of force is the use of force legal.  No other agency, institution, organization has that right.  So the Kosovo precedent that you refer to and that unfortunately this is being talked about in the press.  It’s being asserted that if the Security Council doesn’t agree, there are other options.  Yeah, there are other options.  The problem is they’re all illegal.  The Kosovo model was illegal.  What the US did in 1999, when it wanted to bomb, to start an air war against Serbia over Kosovo, realized it would not get support of the Security Council because Russia had said it would veto.  So instead of saying, ‘Well okay we don’t have support of the Security Council, I guess we can’t do it,’ they said, ‘Okay, we won’t go to the Security Council, we’ll simply go to the NATO High Command and ask their permission.’  Well, what a surprise, the NATO High Command said ‘sure.’  It’s like the hammer and the nail.  If you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  If you’re NATO everything looks like it requires military intervention.  The problem is, under international law, the UN charter is the fundamental component under international law that determines issues of war and peace.  And the charter doesn’t say that the Security Council or NATO or the President of the United States can all decide over the use of force.  The only agency that can legally approve the use of force is the Security Council of the United Nations.  Period.  Full stop.

It’s hypocritical to argue that international custom must be upheld . . . by breaking international law.

It makes no sense.  Neither did today’s US State Dept press briefings moderated by spokesperson Jen Psaki

QUESTION: Based on what the President said last night and what the Secretary said yesterday afternoon, is it correct that the Administration wants to first work with the Russians to get a deal on securing the chemical weapons and taking care of them, and then take that agreement and somehow enshrine it in a UN Security Council resolution – a binding resolution, not a presidential statement – and use that as the basis for going forward? Is that right?

MS. PSAKI: Well, you’re getting a little ahead of where we are in the process.

QUESTION: No, I know, but I’m asking about what your long – what your hope and intention is, based on what the President and the Secretary said yesterday.

MS. PSAKI: Well, let me start with Geneva as the first step, since that, of course, is where the Secretary is heading. So as you all know, over the last 48 hours I guess it is, the credible threat of U.S. military action has created a diplomatic opportunity to remove the threat of chemical weapons in Syria without the use of force. The Secretary will be heading to Geneva, as I mentioned, later this evening to meet with not only Foreign Minister Lavrov, but we will also be bringing a team of experts to meet with their team of experts and discuss that.
So our goal here is to hear from the Russians about the modalities of their ideas that they have put forward, and to assess whether they will meet our requirement for the final disposition of Assad’s chemical weapons. In this stage of the process, our goal here is to test the seriousness of this proposal, to talk about the specifics of how this would get done, what are the mechanics of identifying, verifying, securing, and ultimately destroying the chemical weapons. And this requires, of course, a willingness from both sides. That’s what we’re focused on here.
At the same time, I would look at this as parallel tracks, or there are three tracks happening at once. One is that. The second is the UN and their efforts that are going to be ongoing in New York. We will not be – the Secretary will not be negotiating or discussing a UN Security Council resolution as part of the next couple of days. That is not our goal here. Those efforts and that work will be done in New York. And then, of course, there is the efforts that we’ve had underway with Congress. And there’s no question, and it doesn’t come as a surprise – in fact, we welcome it, as the President said last night – that they would take into account the events of the last couple of days.

QUESTION: I understand. But are you – are – is it your desire, is it the Administration’s desire, to see any potential, acceptable agreement with Russia on the weapons – is it your desire to have that as part of or at least referenced in a Security – a binding Security Council resolution?

MS. PSAKI: We do – we are working towards, of course, a binding UN Security Council resolution.

QUESTION: That would include – that would be the enforcement mechanism for the agreement with the – because an agreement just between Russia and Syria on this is not going to be good enough for you, is it? I mean —

MS. PSAKI: There’s no question that there has to be an international community engagement here and role. What that is and the form it takes, we’re not quite there yet. But when I say credibility and verifiability, that’s all related to what the outcome would be.

QUESTION: So it is – is it – so is it correct or not that you want to see this – if some kind of acceptable agreement can be reached with the Russians, that you would like to see that as part of a UN resolution?

MS. PSAKI: I’m just not going to litigate what could or couldn’t be in a UN resolution.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: Obviously, we’re pursuing that.

QUESTION: Then let’s leave —

MS. PSAKI: We’re focused on day-by-day here.

QUESTION: Then let’s leave that out of it for a second —

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: — and just talk about the UN resolution.

MS. PSAKI: Okay.

QUESTION: What do you want this resolution to have in it?

MS. PSAKI: I don’t have anything more to tell you about what we would like to see —

QUESTION: But do you – all right. But you do want a resolution?

MS. PSAKI: Yes. That’s what we’re pushing for, absolutely.

QUESTION: Yes. Why do you want – why is it – I guess I’m asking – this is a major and significant change from last week and from even on Monday, because the Russians have still said that they don’t want a resolution. And on Friday, your Ambassador to the UN said it would be – what did she say – “It is naive to think that Russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the UN Security Council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. In short, the Security Council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the Security Council we have.” Now that was Samantha Power on Friday, not John Bolton in 2003, and frankly it makes her – she kind of sounded more – makes him sound kind of moderate, those lines. Why is it that you now think that the Russians, even after Lavrov and Putin said they don’t want a resolution, will go for one?

MS. PSAKI: Well —

QUESTION: And this is when Lavrov and Putin said this yesterday, after the whole – their whole thing about getting a deal with the Syrians.

MS. PSAKI: Well, again, I can’t obviously predict what the Russians will or will not – I understand – I saw their comments yesterday. Let me take the first part first, the reference to the speech. There’s no question that in the last 36 hours events have changed. And leadership is having the flexibility to seize opportunities when there’s potential for them. We’re not naive about the challenges. We don’t think this will be easy. But that’s why we’re going to Geneva, and these events of the last 36 hours happened post the speeches that you’re quoting.

QUESTION: I understand. Okay.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: But the problem here – and maybe you don’t – maybe I’m misunderstanding what the Russian position is – the Russians have said that they’re willing to push the Syrians for a deal on the chemical – on their chemical weapons —

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: — an agreement on that. They have not said that they’re willing to have this go to the UN or they’re willing even to have a UN Security Council resolution.

MS. PSAKI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Your Ambassador to the UN and the National Security Advisor, the former UN ambassador, have both said, essentially, it’s a waste of time at the – the President said that, essentially. So I don’t get why it is now even – I don’t get why it is now that you think that such an endeavor would be productive.

MS. PSAKI: Well, a couple of things. One is a lot of those comments from our Ambassador to the UN and Susan Rice and the President came before the last two days. I understand you’re also referring to the comments of the Russians.


MS. PSAKI: I can’t predict what they’ll be willing to support. But what has changed is that on Monday, when Foreign Minister Lavrov came out and made his statement, that was a more serious statement that showed a greater willingness to engage on this than we had seen in the past.

QUESTION: But his statement said nothing about the UN.

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct.

QUESTION: Or any kind of an enforcement mechanism, right?

MS. PSAKI: That’s correct. And those negotiations and discussions will happen at the UN with appropriate UN counterparts. But there’s no question that was a positive step and an indication of more of an openness than what we had even 72 hours ago.

QUESTION: All right. Well, assuming that the UN Ambassador and the former – the current National Security Advisor, former UN Ambassador speak for the Administration, is it still the Administration’s view that it was – it is naive to think that the Russians are on the verge of changing their minds in the Security Council, and that then it’s not realistic – the first was Power, this is Rice – it’s not realistic that it’s going to happen?

MS. PSAKI: Well I —

QUESTION: Is that still the position of the Administration?

MS. PSAKI: I read and watched both of their speeches.

QUESTION: Right. But is that still the position of the Administration —

MS. PSAKI: Matt, the —

QUESTION: — given the fact that the Russians have not said anything or made any sign that they’re willing to allow the Security Council —

MS. PSAKI: You are correct, and I’m not implying that they have. But things have changed in the last 36 hours. We’re working towards a goal here of working with them. I can’t predict what will or won’t come out of the UN Security Council. I know they have a meeting later this afternoon. And beyond that, everyone in the Administration who gave those speeches are all working towards the same effort.

QUESTION: Okay. But I can – I’m a big fan of the Emerson line that “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds,” but I – aren’t you, by going back to the UN, guilty of the naivete that Ambassador Power discussed on Friday?

MS. PSAKI: Well —

QUESTION: I don’t see how what the Russians have said changes anything at the UN, and I don’t see how it can be acceptable for you for there just to some kind of a buddy-buddy agreement between Putin and Assad on the chemical weapons if there’s no enforcement, as —

MS. PSAKI: I just said we’re fully supportive of and pushing for a resolution. What I’m —

QUESTION: I know. But why isn’t that – why doesn’t that make —

MS. PSAKI: Let me just finish.

QUESTION: All right.

MS. PSAKI: What I’m also conveying is that we don’t conduct diplomacy and foreign policy with inflexibility, just to say the things we said last week, when events on the ground change and when a greater opportunity presents itself.

QUESTION: So would you say that the Administration – despite what Ambassador Power said on Friday about being naive, you would say that it is not naive to think that Russia is now on the verge of changing it? I mean, —

MS. PSAKI: Matt, we have —

QUESTION: — either you are guilty of being naive, as she said on Friday, or you’re not.

MS. PSAKI: I simply don’t think it’s that simple.

QUESTION: All right.

Tom Hayden (Los Angeles Times) observes:

The dominant mantra we heard from the president’s allies Tuesday was that it was the credible threat of American military force that caused Russia, Syria and Iran to agree to dismantle Assad’s chemical weapons. If that argument keeps us out of another war, it deserves some credit, even if it’s only partly true.
But it could also be said that it was the “credible threat” of democracy — a defeat of his war plan in Congress and in public opinion polls — that caused the Obama administration to back away from the military brink and seek an honorable way out.

Let’s note some reactions to the speech.   Frank Rich (New York Magazine) offers this on the speech, “He started with a call for military action, then veered into a prayer for diplomacy before trailing off into an inchoate ‘stay tuned’ denouement. I guess this proves that if you mate a hawk with a dove, you end up with the rhetorical equivalent of turducken. I’d like to believe there was some other aim, but what could it have been? A humanitarian preemption of ABC’s The Bachelor? This address should have been put on hold by the White House the moment the attack was put on hold because the urgency of the appeal for force had evaporated. Now, if the Hail Putin Pass proves a Russian-Syrian bluff or some other form of mirage, the president can’t give the same speech again, minus the diplomacy part. One prime-time strike to sell the country on air strikes, and you’re out.”  Truth-Out posts a Real News Network (link is text and transcript) of a discussion on the speech moderated by Jaisal Noor and featuring Rania Masri and Chris Hedges.  Excerpt. 

NOOR: So, Rania, let’s start with you. As an activist that’s been speaking out against this possible intervention, against U.S. involvement in Syria, what’s your response to this speech? Obama asked Congress to delay a possible vote authorizing intervention in Syria.

MASRI: It really was what we had expected. I mean, those of us who’ve been spending time at the Hill and following the news, President Obama’s speech was what we had expected. The postponement was expected. And [incompr.] that he postponed it not only because the Russians provided him with a really strong political way out, a political possibility for chemical weapons deterrence in Syria, but also because he simply didn’t have the votes in Congress. Were this to go to the House, it would have failed. It might even have failed in the Senate.

NOOR: And, Chris, I want to pose that question to you. It seems like within the past few weeks and days, this war has become or this possible intervention in Syria has become increasingly unpopular. At least that’s how it’s been reported in the press. What’s your response to his speech and the fact also that he had to delay this vote in Congress?

HEDGES: Well, Rania is right. He didn’t have the votes, so he had no choice.
But I think this is really symptomatic of an exhaustion on the part of the American public after 12 years of war, 12 years in Afghanistan, ten years in Iraq. They have seen this scenario before. The clips of atrocities, the appealing to American exceptionalism, the high-blown rhetoric of patriotism. Kerry even trotted out once again World War II, calling this the Munich moment and referring to the graves, Normandy. And none of it worked.
It didn’t work because at this point people have been lied to so many times. The excuses and propaganda that is pushed forth and has been pushed forth year after year just fall flat. It doesn’t work anymore. And I think people understand that when you drop Tomahawk missiles, each Tomahawk missile carries a 1,000-pound iron fragmentation bomb or 166 cluster bombs. And they’re talking about dropping hundreds of them.
You know, this circular logic whereby we go in and kill civilians–and Dempsey, the chief of staff, said there would be, quote-unquote, collateral damage to stop the Assad stopping regime from killing civilians, it just–it doesn’t work anymore after Iraq and Afghanistan. I think we’re really seeing a kind of implosion of the myth of war, which has sustained these imperial adventures. And I think Obama just got cornered. You know, left, right, it didn’t make any difference. The [incompr.] sick of it.
And let’s not forget that internally, we are, like all dying empires, being hollowed out from the inside in terms of infrastructure. I live near Philly, I live in Princeton. The school system is shattered with closings and layoffs. Libraries are being shuttered. Head Start is being cut back. Unemployment benefits are not being extended. You know, we’ve reached a point of both physical and emotional exhaustion.

Libertarian Justin Raimondo ( points out:

We are told a Kerry gaffe, an impressive display of Putin’s diplomatic jiu-jitsu, and – most of all – the “credible threat” of war led to what the Obamaites and their media cheerleaders are hailing as a great victory for this administration. A look at the timeline of events, however, effectively debunks the official narrative.
The key development here wasn’t Kerry’s fumble and the Russian interceptionbut the announcement by majority leader Harry Reid that the Senate vote on the war resolution would be delayed: the War Party simply didn’t have the votes. What the administration discovered, to their horror, was that the more they made their case to the American people the less support they had: every time Kerry opened his mouth, their poll numbers went down a few points, and a few more members of Congress came out against intervention. 

The World Can’t Wait Tweeted:

  2. No! #Obama‘s speech did not convince us to support an illegitimate, unjust and immoral war with #syria #NoWarWithSyria

Matthew Rothschild (The Progressive) dissects five claims from the speech:

1. “I possess the authority to order military strikes.”
No you don’t, Mr. President. Only Congress has the authority to declare war, and ordering military strikes would be a clear act of war, thus violating the Constitution. It would also violate the War Powers Act, which says that the President can’t engage in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific Congressional authorization unless there is “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.” And Syria has done no such thing.

A.N.S.W.E.R. decodes Barack’s speech:

The U.S. war threat against Syria has not ended. But the particular path to war has required a shift because of resounding domestic and global opposition.
The U.S. Congress will now be asked to pass a different resolution than the one originally supported by the White House. The new resolution will be constructed to authorize Obama to carry out military strikes if the U.S. government decides that Syria is not in full compliance with a new UN resolution calling for its chemical weapons stockpiles to be totally destroyed. 
This was precisely the scenario used by George W. Bush and Dick Cheney when they launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Even though the Iraqi government complied with UN weapons inspections demands and was actively disarming its own military forces, Bush simply declared that Saddam Hussein was not complying with UN resolutions and launched the U.S. war that toppled the government.
In Syria, like with Iraq, Libya and Iran for the past decades, the U.S. government goal of toppling independent, nationalist governments uses an assortment of tactics, including economic and financial sanctions, funding and arming internal domestic opposition, providing international legitimacy and recognition to the internal opposition, cyber attacks, and in some cases direct bombings and invasion.

Fred Goldstein (Workers World) also views the speech as a charade, “Many are hoping that this proposal will put the skids under the U.S. war drive against Syria. But that would be a fatal error and a complete misunderstanding of Washington, the Pentagon, the oil companies and the military-industrial complex, which are behind the drive to overthrow the independent, sovereign government of Syria.”  BBC News provides this video reaction of various people in the Middle East to an attack on Syria.  Bruce Dixon (Black Agenda Report — link is text and audio) has a strong commentary on the lies used to call for war on Syria.  Libertarian Christopher A. Preble (CATO) live blogged the speech.  The US Green Party states:

The Green Party opposes any resumption of threats to attack Syria and supports a halt to U.S. arms shipments and training for Syrian rebels. Party leaders reiterated the call for a nonviolent resolution, with diplomacy, participation in the upcoming U.N.-backed Geneva II Middle East peace conference, cooperation with the International Criminal Court, and an across-the-board arms embargo.“While this decision to respect the Russian proposal is encouraging, we’re not out of the woods by a longshot. We urge Americans to keep the heat on President Obama to avoid future military action against Syria. In the absence of continued public pressure, it wouldn’t be surprising to see inspections and the talks with Russia and other members of the U.N. Security Council used as a pretext for a later attack,” said Steve Welzer, Green candidate for Governor of New Jersey. Greens noted Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s warning at a congressional hearing: “For this diplomatic option to have a chance at succeeding, the threat of a U.S. military action, the credible, real threat of U.S. military action, must continue.” In fact, such action would be illegal, and the threat of attack gives President Assad reason to maintain arms to defend against that threat. Pressure should be brought on all Syrian factions to come to the peace table and for all foreign parties to stop arming them. Green Party members participated in recent protest rallies across the country in opposition to the planned attack and military aid for Syrian rebel groups and encouraged members and friends to contact their members of Congress to urge nay votes on the resolution granting the President license to order an attack.

Revolution and Stop Patriarchy‘s Sunsara Taylor re-Tweeted Larry Everest on the speech:

  2. #NoWarWithSyria Shocked Obama didn’t promo this video!: … (Albright defending US mass murder of Iraqi children)
    Retweeted by Sunsara Taylor

    View media

  3. #NoWarWithSyria Obama forgot to cover this chapter of US “concern” for Iraqi children: …
    Retweeted by Sunsara Taylor

    View media

Elisabeth Armstrong (CounterPunch) offers this reality, “The choice is not between doing ‘nothing’ or bombing. Other options remain. Meaningful regional diplomacy, drawing in countries that are eager to solve the Syrian standoff, bringing in adversaries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, bringing in US allies such as Israel and Jordan, bringing in the major powers such as Russia and the United States itself, allowing the United Nations to fulfil the process known as Geneva 2. All this is possible. It is doing something. If our media imparts news as a cynical display of power, it is complicit with any US response that begins with military force. Other ways are possible. West Asia deserves another way.” Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report) gets the last word on the topic of Syria:

It was a strange speech, in which the real news was left for last, popping out like a Jack-in-the-Box after 11 minutes of growls and snarls and Obama’s bizarre whining about how unfair it is to be restrained from making war on people who have done you no harm. The president abruptly switched from absurd, lie-based justifications for war to his surprise announcement that, no, Syria’s turn to endure Shock and Awe had been postponed. The reader suddenly realizes that the diplomatic developments had been hastily cut and pasted into the speech, probably only hours before. Obama had intended to build the case for smashing Assad to an imperial peroration – a laying down of the law from on high. But his handlers threw in the towel, for reasons both foreign and domestic. Temporarily defeated, Obama will be back on the Syria warpath as soon as the proper false flag operations can be arranged.
The president’s roiling emotions, visible through his eyes, got in the way of his oratorical skills. But then, he didn’t have much material to work with, just an endless string of prevarications and half-truths strung almost randomly together.

In Iraq, BBC News reports, “Two explosions near a Shia mosque in the Iraqi capital Baghdad have killed at least 35 people, officials say.  At least 55 others were wounded in the attack in the largely Shia district of Kasra as worshippers were leaving the mosque after evening prayers.”  Reuters adds, “A co-ordinated car and suicide bomb attack on a Shi’ite mosque in the Iraqi capital killed at least 33 people on Wednesday evening, police and medical sources said.  Worshippers were leaving the mosque after evening prayers when the car bomb exploded, and as onlookers rushed to help the wounded, a suicide bomber blew himself up in their midst.”  Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) adds, “The bomber wore an explosive vest, which he detonated Wednesday evening in the northwestern al-Kassra neighborhood, police officials said. The force of the blast damaged not only the mosque but several buildings nearby, police said.”  AFP’s Prashant Rao Tweeted:


In addition,  All Iraq News reports a Mosul sticky bombing killed 1 journalist and 1 police colonel was shot dead in Mosul.   NINA reports Sheikh Natiq Yassin was assassinated in Abe al-Kahseb, police shot dead 1 suspect and injured another in Baiji, a suicide car bomber in Tuz Khurmatu claimed the lives of 5 police officers and left another four injured, a Baquba bombing claimed the life of 1 “employee in the Sunni Waqf Directorate in Diyala and his wife,” an attack on a Buhriz checkpoint left 1 police officer dead1 worker for the General Company for Ports of Iraq was shot dead in Basra, and last night 2 Muqdadiya bombings left four people injured. Also last night, AFP reports 1 fifty-year-old women was shot at a Goran rally on Tuesday in Sulaimaniyah and died Tuesday night at the hospital. 

  Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports on the various (“heavy-handed”) efforts that Iraqi officials are using in attempts to reduce violence including a moat around Kirkuk, vehicle restrictions and “bulldozing soccer fields.”  Salman Faraj (AFP) reports on the Kirkuk moat, “workers are digging the 53-kilometre (32-mile) trench — a defensive measure dating to ancient times.”

The US Embassy in Baghdad posted “Emergency Message for U.S. Citizens” at its website late yesterday:

The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all but essential travel to Iraq.
Due to heightened safety and security risks and the ongoing threat of terrorist activities throughout Iraq, the U.S. government remains highly concerned about the danger to U.S. citizens, whether visiting or residing in Iraq, and to U.S. facilities and businesses.  Threats against U.S. interests, U.S. assets, and foreign companies employing U.S. personnel in Iraq have been reported, related to a possible U.S. military strike on Syria.
On the eve of the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. Embassy reminds U.S. citizens of the need for caution and awareness of personal security.  U.S. citizens in Iraq should avoid areas where large gatherings may occur.  Even demonstrations intended to be peaceful can turn confrontational and escalate into violence.  You should avoid areas of demonstrations and exercise caution if in the vicinity of any large gatherings, protests, or demonstrations.
Review your personal security plans; remain aware of your surroundings, including local events; and monitor local news stations for updates.  Maintain a high level of vigilance, take appropriate steps to enhance your personal security and follow instructions of local authorities.
We strongly recommend that U.S. citizens residing in Iraq enroll in the Department of State’s Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP).   STEP enrollment gives you the latest security updates, and makes it easier for the U.S. embassy or nearest U.S. consulate to contact you in an emergency. If you don’t have Internet access, enroll directly with the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate.
For the latest security information, U.S. citizens traveling abroad should regularly monitor the Department of State’s Internet website at where the Worldwide Caution, Country Specific Information, Travel Warnings, and Travel Alerts can be found.  Follow us on Twitter and the Bureau of Consular Affairs page on Facebook as well.  Download our free Smart Traveler app, available through iTunes or Google Play, to have travel information at your fingertips. 
Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the United States and Canada, or, for callers outside the United States and Canada, a regular toll line at 1-202-501-4444. These numbers are available from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays).
The U.S. Embassy is located at Al Kindi Street, IZ, Baghdad.  If you are a U.S. citizen in need of urgent assistance, the emergency number for the U.S. Embassy is 0770-443-128, from the United States:  011-964-770-443-1286.  The U.S. Consulate General in Erbil is located at 413 Ishtar, Ankawa, Erbil:  0770-443-4396.






This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s