HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » U.S. Military and Intelli...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:24 PM

U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials to Obama: “Assad NOT Responsible for Chemical Attack”

Exclusive: Despite the Obama administration’s supposedly “high confidence” regarding Syrian government guilt over the Aug. 21 chemical attack near Damascus, a dozen former U.S. military and intelligence officials are telling President Obama that they are picking up information that undercuts the Official Story.

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

The Intelligence

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono?


That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role

Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for (the United States).”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation


We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/

237 replies, 12462 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 237 replies Author Time Post
Reply U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials to Obama: “Assad NOT Responsible for Chemical Attack” (Original post)
Catherina Sep 2013 OP
ProSense Sep 2013 #1
whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #9
R. Daneel Olivaw Sep 2013 #14
ProSense Sep 2013 #15
whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #18
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #27
whatchamacallit Sep 2013 #31
GoneFishin Sep 2013 #140
iemitsu Sep 2013 #154
HumansAndResources Sep 2013 #191
iemitsu Sep 2013 #193
Ghost Dog Sep 2013 #194
samsingh Sep 2013 #205
Jackpine Radical Sep 2013 #39
progressoid Sep 2013 #138
golfguru Sep 2013 #108
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #225
R. Daneel Olivaw Sep 2013 #20
ProSense Sep 2013 #28
R. Daneel Olivaw Sep 2013 #178
mindwalker_i Sep 2013 #70
uhnope Sep 2013 #122
Summer Hathaway Sep 2013 #126
questionseverything Sep 2013 #137
SunSeeker Sep 2013 #177
mindwalker_i Sep 2013 #143
nashville_brook Sep 2013 #213
bobduca Sep 2013 #201
nashville_brook Sep 2013 #212
mindwalker_i Sep 2013 #222
Cryptoad Sep 2013 #159
wisteria Sep 2013 #92
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #227
John2 Sep 2013 #120
iemitsu Sep 2013 #155
Raksha Sep 2013 #169
bobduca Sep 2013 #200
Ocelot Sep 2013 #158
MyNameGoesHere Sep 2013 #208
jsr Sep 2013 #2
HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #3
Catherina Sep 2013 #6
Coyotl Sep 2013 #7
Coyotl Sep 2013 #4
Nevernose Sep 2013 #8
truebluegreen Sep 2013 #77
proverbialwisdom Sep 2013 #114
Schema Thing Sep 2013 #152
frylock Sep 2013 #176
ctsnowman Sep 2013 #206
proverbialwisdom Sep 2013 #236
truebluegreen Sep 2013 #168
GoneFishin Sep 2013 #142
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #197
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #5
Catherina Sep 2013 #10
msanthrope Sep 2013 #113
SidDithers Sep 2013 #11
randr Sep 2013 #12
Carolina Sep 2013 #40
MineralMan Sep 2013 #13
ProSense Sep 2013 #16
MineralMan Sep 2013 #19
TomClash Sep 2013 #95
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #21
MineralMan Sep 2013 #23
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #26
MineralMan Sep 2013 #29
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #33
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #74
MineralMan Sep 2013 #82
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #84
MineralMan Sep 2013 #102
KoKo Sep 2013 #41
MineralMan Sep 2013 #43
KoKo Sep 2013 #47
MineralMan Sep 2013 #48
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #59
KoKo Sep 2013 #63
MineralMan Sep 2013 #64
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #69
MineralMan Sep 2013 #71
KoKo Sep 2013 #144
Oilwellian Sep 2013 #55
MineralMan Sep 2013 #57
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #96
MineralMan Sep 2013 #100
bvar22 Sep 2013 #116
marew Sep 2013 #148
pkdu Sep 2013 #195
Link Speed Sep 2013 #61
MineralMan Sep 2013 #62
rug Sep 2013 #141
geek tragedy Sep 2013 #109
Raksha Sep 2013 #119
geek tragedy Sep 2013 #121
frylock Sep 2013 #53
MineralMan Sep 2013 #56
frylock Sep 2013 #58
MineralMan Sep 2013 #65
frylock Sep 2013 #67
Rebellious Republican Sep 2013 #73
MineralMan Sep 2013 #88
TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #99
MineralMan Sep 2013 #101
TheKentuckian Sep 2013 #125
MineralMan Sep 2013 #156
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #85
MineralMan Sep 2013 #86
wisteria Sep 2013 #93
MineralMan Sep 2013 #94
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #188
WillyT Sep 2013 #17
indepat Sep 2013 #22
KittyWampus Sep 2013 #25
MissDeeds Sep 2013 #51
KittyWampus Sep 2013 #24
MineralMan Sep 2013 #30
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #35
former9thward Sep 2013 #164
HumansAndResources Sep 2013 #192
WorseBeforeBetter Sep 2013 #136
Caretha Sep 2013 #170
WorseBeforeBetter Sep 2013 #174
denbot Sep 2013 #32
MNBrewer Sep 2013 #34
iandhr Sep 2013 #36
pnwmom Sep 2013 #38
iandhr Sep 2013 #49
frylock Sep 2013 #128
pnwmom Sep 2013 #131
frylock Sep 2013 #132
Raksha Sep 2013 #145
MineralMan Sep 2013 #45
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #226
valerief Sep 2013 #37
99th_Monkey Sep 2013 #42
Raksha Sep 2013 #123
cali Sep 2013 #44
golfguru Sep 2013 #112
Scootaloo Sep 2013 #127
golfguru Sep 2013 #153
HardTimes99 Sep 2013 #173
Junkdrawer Sep 2013 #46
blkmusclmachine Sep 2013 #50
MissDeeds Sep 2013 #52
Lifelong Dem Sep 2013 #54
another_liberal Sep 2013 #72
Lifelong Dem Sep 2013 #76
DevonRex Sep 2013 #60
MineralMan Sep 2013 #66
David Krout Sep 2013 #75
DevonRex Sep 2013 #89
amandabeech Sep 2013 #147
David Krout Sep 2013 #80
another_liberal Sep 2013 #68
Catherina Sep 2013 #78
DemocratSinceBirth Sep 2013 #87
another_liberal Sep 2013 #146
malthaussen Sep 2013 #134
another_liberal Sep 2013 #149
creeksneakers2 Sep 2013 #209
another_liberal Sep 2013 #215
muriel_volestrangler Sep 2013 #79
MineralMan Sep 2013 #97
questionseverything Sep 2013 #135
Rex Sep 2013 #81
Flatulo Sep 2013 #83
wisteria Sep 2013 #90
frylock Sep 2013 #98
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #91
Rebellious Republican Sep 2013 #104
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #107
Catherina Sep 2013 #163
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #179
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #184
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #185
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #187
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #189
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #190
another_liberal Sep 2013 #221
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #229
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #230
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #231
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #232
JackRiddler Sep 2013 #234
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #232
Bolo Boffin Sep 2013 #103
Rebellious Republican Sep 2013 #111
msanthrope Sep 2013 #105
geek tragedy Sep 2013 #106
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #110
riverbendviewgal Sep 2013 #115
George II Sep 2013 #117
IsItJustMe Sep 2013 #118
Raksha Sep 2013 #129
frylock Sep 2013 #130
ProSense Sep 2013 #139
IsItJustMe Sep 2013 #219
sulphurdunn Sep 2013 #124
marew Sep 2013 #150
Cosmocat Sep 2013 #160
leveymg Sep 2013 #133
amandabeech Sep 2013 #151
leveymg Sep 2013 #162
amandabeech Sep 2013 #165
leveymg Sep 2013 #199
CRH Sep 2013 #157
Catherina Sep 2013 #161
CRH Sep 2013 #167
Catherina Sep 2013 #166
proverbialwisdom Sep 2013 #172
Catherina Sep 2013 #180
YOHABLO Sep 2013 #171
Catherina Sep 2013 #182
Sand Wind Sep 2013 #175
frylock Sep 2013 #181
Dragonfli Sep 2013 #183
rhett o rick Sep 2013 #186
Coyotl Sep 2013 #204
grahamhgreen Sep 2013 #196
soryang Sep 2013 #198
vdogg Sep 2013 #202
CRH Sep 2013 #207
Octafish Sep 2013 #203
nashville_brook Sep 2013 #217
Octafish Sep 2013 #223
nashville_brook Sep 2013 #237
creeksneakers2 Sep 2013 #210
nashville_brook Sep 2013 #214
AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2013 #211
arely staircase Sep 2013 #216
OregonBlue Sep 2013 #218
JEB Sep 2013 #220
SidDithers Sep 2013 #224
greytdemocrat Sep 2013 #228
ellenfl Sep 2013 #235

Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:26 PM

1. For the third time:

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

...They're trying to prove the rebels did it, but are claiming the intelligence the U.S. is presenting against Assad is unreliable?

The nonsense about being "down this road before – with President George W. Bush" is beyond absurd.

This is basically another Assad didn't do it argument. The intelligence isn't fake. The attack isn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Even they acknowledge the attack, but are making a convoluted case that the rebels did it. The scale and location of the attacks make the case against the rebels more implausible, but those trying to absolve Assad seem to want to portray their claims as irrefutable.

There is also evidence from other countries implicating Assad.

The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778

Sarin traces found in Syria chemical weapons attack, Britain says

By Michael Pearson. Greg Botelho and Holly Yan, CNN

(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.

Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.

The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.

The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:34 PM

9. Once again you blindly pin what little credibility you have to the administration line

Maybe you'll be vindicated, or maybe you'll go down with the ship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:44 PM

14. What usually flees a sinking ship? Hmmm.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:46 PM

15. EU: All info on Syria gas attack points to Assad

EU: All info on Syria gas attack points to Assad
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617191

"Once again you blindly pin what little credibility you have to the administration line"

All you have are lame personal attacks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:47 PM

18. I read your utterly unconvincing advertisement

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #18)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:59 PM

27. Why do you believe the rebels gassing themselves

Why do you believe the rebels gassing themselves is a more plausible scenario than Assad and his agents gassing the rebels?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:06 PM

31. I honestly don't know who is responsible

Call me paranoid but I want to see independent confirmation of the administration's claims. It's pretty obvious why the rebels might do it; if you could create a circumstance where the US bombed the shit out your enemy you'd probably do pretty much anything. Especially that bloodthirsty bunch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:19 PM

140. +1. Agreed. They have already come to terms with killing each other. So tricking

the U.S. into doing their dirty work would not weigh one bit on their consciences.

On the flip side, Assad knows that if he uses CWs and is caught red handed, then the chickenhawks would love to bomb the baloney out of him.

So absent any hard proof, who is more likely to use CWs? The ones that stand to gain greatly from it, or the one that will get the shit bombed out of him for it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #31)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:27 PM

154. It is possible, that since we are funding rebels, that we

might have planted the scheme in their minds.
The group of distinguished retired spies, who put this document together, suggest that their currently working friends in the spy business, didn't give the administration the same story as they are giving us.
I've long suspected that the CIA was really in charge of foreign policy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iemitsu (Reply #154)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:55 AM

191. The CIA Takes Orders from the Same Billionaires which Staffs the State Dept

 

The job of the CIA and the State Dept is to protect the "investments" which Billionaires have Stolen around the globe. They are, Mob-Enforcement for the Transnational Bankster and Industrialists Cartels. The USA took over the "global enforcer" role from the Brits after WWII. American workers "went along" with this scheme, because a "critical percentage" were spared the poverty-fate of the colonized - a sizeable middle-class "voting block" was well paid.

When the WWII generation retired, the younger generation decided to sell-out / colonize the USA as well - hence the loss of our manufacturing and standard of living. Only the Scandanavians are left now with a high standard of living, as their Royals evidently don't want to live in a gated-community within a national-ghetto like American and Latin-American Elites.

But we must remember that European lifestyles are funded, as was the now declining / pre-outsourcing US-living standard (see: Trade Deficit), to a great extent by global extortion rackets. In these "Transnational" endeavors, Euro-Elites are partners with their US counterparts, with the "Spanish descent" families in Latin America, with Royals in the Gulf region, and etc.

To end all this, this network of Mafias must be boycotted by humanity until it starves to death. And we must be prepared for the violence of its death-throes - terrorists, wars, lies and all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HumansAndResources (Reply #191)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:49 AM

193. You clarified my meaning well.

And I see the same eventual outcomes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #31)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:00 AM

205. are Assad's opponents better than Assad?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:28 PM

39. "The rebels" are not a homogeneous group.

Fellow-travelers sometimes find each other expendable in the interest of the Greater Cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackpine Radical (Reply #39)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:10 PM

138. Yup.

It's hard for a lot of people to see the shades of grey in these conflicts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #27)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:06 PM

108. It is called "a strategic war tactic"

The opponents of Assad are losing the war. They desperately need US Air force & Navy to bail them out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #27)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:39 AM

225. "The rebels gassing themselves"

This phrase mainly serves to show ignorance about the situation in Syria.

Inform yourself up to a basic standard before mouthing off.

For a start: Are the "rebels" a single group?

How many "rebel" factions are there estimated to be?

What is their relationship to each other?

What is the relationship of different factions to the actual revolution that was happening prior to the armed hostilities?

Have "rebel" factions fought each other?

Which outside powers are supporting which factions?

How many actual "rebel" fighters appear to have been killed in the August 21 attack?

Etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:50 PM

20. Yellowcake! Yellowcake!

VILNIUS, Lithuania (AP) — The European Union agreed on Saturday that the Aug. 21 chemical attack outside Damascus appears to have been the work of Syria’s regime, but that any potential military attack against it should wait for a U.N. inspectors’ report.


After meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, the EU ministers ended days of division on the issue with a statement saying the available intelligence ‘‘seems to indicate strong evidence that the Syrian regime is responsible for these attacks.’’


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to R. Daneel Olivaw (Reply #20)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:00 PM

28. "but that any potential military attack against it should wait for a U.N. inspectors’ report."

You highlighted that. What's your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #28)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:37 AM

178. What do you believe the point is?


It's fairly obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #15)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:22 PM

70. You have a long history of supporting Obama

no matter what the issue, no matter what the facts. That makes you far less credible in regards to any issue having to do with Obama or what he wants to do - one simply cannot believe you will give any fair treatment to any issue regarding Obama. Sure, you post lots of information, but one has to wonder how carefully picked that information is in order to support whatever Obama wants to do.

Since you have no credibility, your posts are just noise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #70)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:50 PM

122. that's really irrational. Prosense has history of one more thing

and that is sticking to verifiable facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #122)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:16 PM

126. Its the 'sticking to verifiable facts'

that has gained Prosense so many enemies. Some people don't want 'the facts' - it interferes with their delusional thinking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #126)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:05 PM

137. as far as sticking to the verifiable facts

how does pro KNOW what this evidence is since our own congressmen are not allowed to see it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Summer Hathaway (Reply #126)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:11 AM

177. + 1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #122)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:32 PM

143. True, but only in that PS sticks to a specific subset of verifiable facts

that tell a very one-sided story. People who believe something strongly will find facts to support that belief, examples include racism or religion.

PS would have us believe that there is no "funny business" in ginning up a war with Syria, as she would have us believe that the government, under Obama, is not collecting all out phone calls. She has made the argument that only metadata is being collected.

Sorry, but this was is a really bad idea. People have written eloquently about why it's a really bad idea, and I won't repeat those arguments here. Also, the government spying on us is a really bad thing, even if it were limited to being used to track terrorists, its effect on our democracy would be profound and dangerous. It's not limited to catching terrorists, which makes it a lot worse.

Defending Obama on these issues is incredible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mindwalker_i (Reply #143)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:11 PM

213. +10000000 -- plenty of time for blind partisanship during campaign season.

a serious person looks at the merits of an issue regardless of the politics at the moment. which, btw, aren't clearly D vs R. This is a right vs wrong issue -- and an issue that impacts our ability to maintain our responsibilities here at home, as well as the brand of the Democratic going forward. there's a lot more in play than the legacy of this president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #122)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 08:43 AM

201. her posts are 'verifiable' all right

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobduca (Reply #201)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:05 PM

212. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #122)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:22 PM

222. Another thing she does is to call other people's arguments

based on non-ProSense-approved facts, either absurd or silly. That's purely supporting a person or party, without regard to the policies that person or party is promoting. I believe in Democratic ideals, such as using government to help people or society where applicable, and limiting it where it is being used to hurt democracy - specifically spying of ALL OF US, ALL THE TIME! That is a bad use of government. People who support that unquestioningly destroy their own credibility.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #9)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:13 PM

159. Thanks,,,

but i think I will keep horse hooked up to the Obama Wagon rather than
"Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity "

please....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:40 PM

92. Agree with you. This is nonsense. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #92)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:51 AM

227. Hm, Drake and Rowley, or Clapper and Brennan?

McGovern, or Kerry?

Tough choices!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:44 PM

120. And for the Fourth

 

time, why do you keep trying to sell the same Governments wanting to strike Syria, ever since this Chemical redline was established? Everyone of those sources have been accused as bias and supporting the so called rebels. This isn't the first time they have tried to accuse the Assad Government of using chemical weapons and tried to convince us, the rebels, consisting of terrorist groups like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and foreign groups from Libya, Tunisia,Belgium and Checknya isn't capable of using chemical weapons and don't even have the means. There is intelligence from opposing forces saying the U.S. and those supporters lied about that. They have been caught in several lies so far.

When someone catches you lying, it seems to reason you will stop lying. It seems these people have a problem though which indicates they are evil or have some sickness. It seems some people in Government think they are above the Laws and they don't apply to them. Can you guess which Governments have shown these symptons. Maybe believing some businesses or corporations are too Big to fail and be prosecuted might give you some clue.

The same people that produced false intelligence about Iraq, are still running the American Intelligence Agencies. They believe in the cause of regime change, and they report to those politicians probably also. Clapper should be runned out of the intelligence field and fired for lying to Congress. Obama keeps them in place, because he agrees with their advice.

If they can justify droning women and children to get at terrorists, then why can't you believe they are capable of manufacturing false evidence to kill women and children by the rebels. I want the CIA to appear before a Congressional Board and specifically under oath deny the rebels have access or the capabilities to carry out chemical attacks. I don't want to hear it from the White house but the head of the CIA and Mr Clapper subject to them going to prison for life if they lie under oath. Then we will get some where. I want everything about chemical weapons uses and abilities by the rebels declassified and anything about the possibility of the Erodogen,Saudi, Qatar or Israeli Government providing chemical weapons to the rebels. All of it should be declassified at the UN, along with the evidence supplied by the Syrian,Russian and other Governments claiming The U.S. and her allies supplied the rebels with chemical weapons.

I don't think anybody's word should be taken for granted given the track records of this Governments. We don't want to listen to either side play with words either. When we say rebels, we mean Al Nusra,Al Qaeda, the Taliban and certain terrorist groups from Foreign countries. I think if there is evidence Prince Bandar and Prime Minister Erodogen has been secretly suppling chemical weapons to Terrorist groups, they should be prosecuted under International Law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #120)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:40 PM

155. Politicians answer to the CIA and the NSA and the 16 other "intelligence Organizaions" that

our tax dollars support, not the other way around.
And the CIA does not work for American interests, it is a fascist creation of the uber-classes, that works for corporate interests.
If rank and file spies are telling their ex-spy friends that the Administration's story is wrong, we all ought to listen. Including, especially, Obama.
This group grants Obama the possibility that he is unaware of the truth. That is a terrible thing for them to assume might be. That the heads of the intelligence community control the decisions of the President.
This is further evidence that we need to shut down organizations that use our resources to infringe on our privacy.
They already have too much power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #120)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:08 PM

169. +1000 Great post!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to John2 (Reply #120)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 08:42 AM

200. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:10 PM

158. Sorry, I don't believe the White House on Syria

 

Obama lied knowingly to the people of the United States about the extent of NSA spying a very short time ago. That's a fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #1)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:50 AM

208. Its got electrolytes. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:27 PM

2. Recommend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:27 PM

3. Link? Want to propagate this far and wide. K&R - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HardTimes99 (Reply #3)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:30 PM

6. Just added it for you. Robert Parry at Consortium News

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:29 PM

4. Obama's House of Cards is collapsing rapidly. Fool us once ...

Were it not for Reagan's Iran-Contra and Bush's Iraq, they would get away with lying the Us into war. How ironic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #4)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:34 PM

8. According to these guys, it's not Obama

They say he's been lied to by war mongers within the American government, people who have wanted to go to war agonist Iran and/or Assad for years. Frankly, that's really not much of a stretch for me to believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:28 PM

77. Or so they "choose to assume."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebluegreen (Reply #77)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:25 PM

114. Historically, V.I.P.S. has demonstrated great integrity and collectively deserves the utmost respect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veteran_Intelligence_Professionals_for_Sanity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Adams_Award

Google: Sam Adams Award site:http://commondreams.org
Google: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity site:http://www.counterpunch.org
Formerly AfterDowningStreet.org http://warisacrime.org/vips (compilation of letters)

VIP members (or so I've read) Daniel Ellsberg, Lawrence Wilkerson, Craig Murray, Sibel Edmonds aren't listed above. Significance?



(in the weeds except for insiders, IMO)


I'm glad they've made their concerns public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #114)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:18 PM

152. Daniel Ellsberg, Lawrence Wilkerson, Craig Murray, Sibel Edmonds


Are probably aware that this propaganda letter is too comical to be believed even by someone skeptical of the official line.

It reads as if a not-very-smart Junior High spy novelist wannabee wrote it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Schema Thing (Reply #152)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:10 AM

176. we all look forward to your detailed rebuttal..

or was this it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #176)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:10 AM

206. lol

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Schema Thing (Reply #152)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 04:31 PM

236. 9/10- Gareth Porter: Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack (part 1)

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=10690

Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack

Pt 1: Gareth Porter: US Intelligence on Syria "cherry-picked" by proponents of proposed strike
September 10, 13

VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT

Guest Bio:

Gareth Porter is a historian and investigative journalist on US foreign and military policy analyst. He writes regularly for Inter Press Service on US policy towards Iraq and Iran. Author of four books, the latest of which is Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam.

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jaisal Noor in Baltimore. And welcome to this latest edition of The Porter Report.

As the Obama administration continues to outline its case for attacking Syria, new revelations have come to light that call into question the very intelligence the White House is using to justify its actions.

Now joining us to discuss this is Gareth Porter. He's a historian and investigative journalist on U.S. foreign and military policy. He writes regularly for the Inter Press Service, and he received the U.K.-based Gellhorn Prize for Journalism in 2011 for his articles on the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new piece published today in IPS is "Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus".

Thank you so much for joining us, Gareth.

GARETH PORTER, INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALIST: Thank you, Jaisal.

NOOR: So, Gareth, what do you know and how do you know it?

PORTER: Well, we know that there's a problem with the way in which the intelligence paper that the White House issued August 30 has been described, for a number of reasons. The thing that--the tipoff that should have alerted me and many others but which I and others missed is the fact that this paper about the intelligence on the Syrian chemical weapons attack or alleged attack of August 21 has been called by the White House, labeled a U.S. government assessment.

Now, that raises very fundamental question: why would the White House call a paper that's supposed to represent the intelligence community's perspective or their analysis of this intelligence a U.S. government assessment? And that is a tipoff that in fact this was not a paper that was put forward by the intelligence community itself and then simply released by the White House. It was a paper that went through a process which did involve the intelligence community, no doubt about that. They undoubtedly submitted their analyses, various intelligence agencies, the CIA, the DIA, and the 14 others, to the office of the director of national intelligence, James Clapper. There was a press report a couple of days, I think three days before the release of this paper indicating that the plan was that Clapper would be the person who would be the alleged author or the person whose name would be on this paper. But in fact his name is nowhere to be found. And I found from a very careful search of the website of the office of the director of national intelligence that it's nowhere to be found there either. It's only found on the White House website itself.

And incidentally, when I called the office of the director of national intelligence for this story on three successive days, a number of phone calls as well as an email, I could get no response whatsoever from them, and it's very clear they were refusing to talk to me about this. So this is the first clue that this was in fact a White House product in the end. But the White House had the final say over what was included in the product and not the director of national intelligence, not the CIA director or any of the other top officials of the intelligence community.

<>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #114)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:03 PM

168. You misunderstood?

I was pointing out that they weren't calling Obama a liar, they "chose to assume" that he was being misled.

I have far more respect for the signatories to that letter than I do for the administration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #8)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:26 PM

142. It's not unplausible. But I have come to suspect that he leans that way already after

he sat quiet on the sidelines during the "fish-in-a-barrel" shoot in open air prison Gaza.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nevernose (Reply #8)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 05:16 AM

197. He'd have to be dumber than the Majority of Americans;)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:30 PM

5. It's lucky for PBO that he has decent people trying to stop him from this ill advised war

Imagine how many people wouldn't have been needlessly slaughtered in Iraq had this been the case back then. PBO should thank his lucky stars that as a nation we're not going along with him this time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:34 PM

10. That he should but he seems more comfortable with sycophants right now.

The same people who wrote this letter fired one off to General Dempsey reminding him that if he goes to war without legal authorization, he'll be committing a war crime. Ray McGovern stated that right after Dempsey read that letter, came the shocking announcement to go to Congress for authorization.

Patriots are doing all they can to stop this war. I hope Obama, and the general public, spurn the drum-beating sycophants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:12 PM

113. Decent people? Larry Johnson did the "whitey tape" bullshit about Michelle Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:37 PM

11. "Former" being the key word...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:40 PM

12. If Omama were the man I voted for

he would be cleaning house and we would embark on a future void of the MIC, CIA, Homeland Security, etal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randr (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:34 PM

40. Touche, randr

But instead, he is showing us his true self and where his real passion is!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:42 PM

13. Former and retired officials have the same

level of access as any DUer. No more. No less.

MineralMan - USAF Security Service Analyst & Translator, NSA (former)

See...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:46 PM

16. Larry Johnson is a racist nutcase. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #16)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:49 PM

19. That's as may be.

It doesn't matter. None of the people who signed that letter know any more than anyone else who is not involved.

It's bullshit, and will be treated as such by whomever receives it.

None of those people are in any position to know any more than I do. Their opinions have the same value as mine, too. Which is pretty close to nil.

I can state my opinion, and they can state theirs. There's no real value in either. They're just opinions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #19)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:45 PM

95. Hilarious

That was so funny you made my day. Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:52 PM

21. That seems a little disingenuous

Are you discounting their expertise? Or just their "up to dateness"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:56 PM

23. I'm Discounting Both.

As many have been quick to point out, my own experience in the intelligence business has no relevance to the current situation. Neither does that of the undersigners of that letter.

I do not know their expertise or their experience, either. Neither do you. Neither does the OP.

If current intelligence personnel are sharing classified information with any of the people who signed that letter, they are breaking the law in doing so. For that reason, I doubt that the statement in the first paragraph of the letter is even true.

Why would anyone pay any attention to what former and retired intelligence personnel say about what is happening now. They have the same level of knowledge as I do, and nobody pays any attention to me, after all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:58 PM

26. How can both of these statements be true?

"I do not know their expertise or their experience"

"They have the same level of knowledge as I do"

It's one or the other, it can't be both.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #26)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:03 PM

29. And you don't know my expertise or experience.

Just as I don't know theirs.

Neither they or I are experts in this. It is that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:08 PM

33. you said you didn't know their expertise

and you said "Neither they or I are experts in this". One of those statements is a baldfaced lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #29)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:27 PM

74. Still being disingenuous??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #74)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:31 PM

82. :shrug:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #82)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:33 PM

84. I'm starting to see what others have told me is true

I didn't believe it. Until now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #84)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:51 PM

102. OK. Again, :shrug:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:36 PM

41. MM...the signers of this letter could have current inside sources.

This group has been very active and would have people who support them still inside intelligence community who agree with their efforts. You say they are "breaking the law if they do so" and yet what if they are trying to stop this strike on Syria because of special current security knowledge and deep commitments that this would be a mistake.

Just as Newspapers have "sources" who are not prosecuted (well until lately..with the Obama Admins war on whistle blowers) for "leaking info" they feel is in the vital interest of the nation it would seem that this group is active enough that they would have legitimate sources. Now we can't forget Judith Miller, Curveball and the other inside sources working for Think Tanks that helped ramp up the Iraq Invasion who were spreading propaganda for their own reasons. But, Ray McGovern and this group probably has more current info that you would since you've been out of the scene for many years and perhaps lost contact with those you worked with who might still be active.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:44 PM

43. Sure they could. Or not. Certainly, they did not quote any

of those sources.

As an exercise, I googled a few of their names. Very interesting, indeed, and an exercise I recommend to others. Quite a rabble, they are, indeed.

One was a foreign affairs adviser to Ron Paul, for example.

Go use Google.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #43)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:51 PM

47. Rabble...didn't name sources...Ron Paul.. Okay...

Got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:52 PM

48. Cool. Glad you got it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #47)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:11 PM

59. "ron paul" is the DU equivalent of the "Expelliarmus" spell in Harry Potter

It's supposed to magically disarm anyone you disagree with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #59)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:15 PM

63. lol's....Expelliarmus spell... good analogy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #59)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:15 PM

64. Expletive Ron Paul!

See ya.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #64)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:21 PM

69. I would work with Ron Paul to keep us out of war. I would work with RAND Paul to do the same thing

I am NOT on the Blue Team when the Blue Team is for war. There are coalitions that the powerful fear to see made. one of those is anti-war left and anti-war right.

You bet your expletive that as a Liberal I'd work with the Pauls (as disgusting and non-Libertarian as they are) on issues where we CAN work together. And I'll oppose them where our interests conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #69)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:24 PM

71. I don't care. Do as you please.



I'm not for war, either, as I have stated on multiple threads. You do whatever pleases you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #71)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:48 PM

144. Nevermind..

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:36 PM - Edit history (1)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #41)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:03 PM

55. They started their letter...

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically,


I hope they go public before Obama starts WWIII.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #55)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:08 PM

57. Yes. They wrote that.

Without corroboration, it's meaningless. It's just another way to say, "I've been told that...." without revealing any source information.

Classic bullshit technique. It should always raise skepticism, whenever it appears.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #57)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:46 PM

96. "Without corroboration, it's meaningless"? Where's the corroboration that you were in intelligence?

 

1. On the Internet, as in bars, anyone can claim to have been in military intelligence or NSA intelligence.

2. It is not credible for a person who claims to have been in intelligence to make unsupported suppositions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #96)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:49 PM

100. Yes, I suppose they could claim that.

I don't claim it. I did it. I'm not going to copy and paste my DD-214 for you, though.

Have a pleasant afternoon, won't you...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #57)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:30 PM

116. Without corroboration, it's meaningless.

Thank You!
That is the EXACT same way I feel about the claims being made by President Obama and John Kerry.


Had Obama Cleaned House at our "Intelligence" Agencies after gaining the Oval Office, and destroyed the cabal that purposely falsified the intelligence on Iraq & Libya, I would give this some thought,
but he didn't.
In many cases, it is the same pack of blood thirsty PNAC War Mongers that were there under Bush,
and they and their "product" that Obama & Kerry are working so hard to SELL is tainted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #116)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:11 PM

148. Absolutely!

Same old, same old!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Oilwellian (Reply #55)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 04:22 AM

195. The guy in the fucking mail-room is a former co-worker.... Puh-Lease nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:13 PM

61. If I had to choose between WH, MIC, Congress or a bunch of retirees

 

for truthfulness, I'd go with the retirees every time.

The retirees bank their opinions on experience, the others just fit the frame and follow the script that they are handed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Link Speed (Reply #61)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:14 PM

62. Yes, well, OK.

Good luck with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #23)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:21 PM

141. I surmise their recent experience is likely better than 30 years more recent than yours.

I'd give their statements more credence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #21)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:06 PM

109. Larry Johnson's signature discredits the whole thing.

Maybe Orly Taitz was unavailable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #109)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:44 PM

119. Really? Does Larry Johnson's signature cancel out Colleen Rowley's?

What about Ann Wright's or Ray McGovern's? These are the four names I remember from the run-up to the Iraq War. Those four people told thei truth when everyone else was lying. That gives them one hell of a lot of credibility with me. I'm sure the other signatories whose names are not familiar to me are telling the truth as well, or what they sincerely believe to be the truth anyway. That's more than I can say for Obama or Kerry.

Their credibility won't easily be destroyed by accusations of racism or any other cheap smears. Even if Larry Johnson is a racist--and I don't know one way or the other--I have every reason to believe he's telling the truth about Assad's ALLEGED used of CWs. And again--his signature isn't the only one on that letter.

No, Larry Johnson's signature DOES NOT "discredit the whole thing." But your saying so goes a long way towards discrediting you--I mean more than you've been discredited already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raksha (Reply #119)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:45 PM

121. Larry Johnson = Orly Taitz.

If you want to place blind faith in a professional liar and fraudster, go right ahead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:59 PM

53. and of course they severe all ties with former coworkers and have zero inside connections..

get fucking real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #53)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:06 PM

56. You know, it's illegal for those former coworkers

to share classified information with former coworkers. I'm in contact with a number of former coworkers from my days in the USAFSS and elsewhere. We never discuss what we may know that isn't already known to the other person. Even now. Even many years later.

Some people take security rules seriously. Others may not.

I'm always "fucking real."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:09 PM

58. oh my goodness gracious! it's illegals!!11

I don't give two fucking shits if it's illegal, as long as it sheds light on the behind the scenes bullshit leading up to these strikes. rule of law is what you authoritarians obsess over. laws over ethics. fuck that shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #58)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:16 PM

65. You seem enamored of the words

"fuck" and "shit" today. Me, not so much. I'm out of this conversation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #65)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:18 PM

67. have a wonderful weekend

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:27 PM

73. Props and Kudo's to you MineralMan, trust me when I say I understand.

 



Here is my cred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rebellious Republican (Reply #73)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:35 PM

88. Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #56)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:48 PM

99. You were a peon. Peons as we all well know have different rules and access than the bosses.

These folks also aren't nearly out of the loop as you are, you did your stint decades ago and totally got out the game.

I do not believe your experience to be comparable enough for you to jump in as expert witness of their lack of understanding of the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #99)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:50 PM

101. OK. Whatever you believe is fine with me.

I don't care, frankly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #101)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:06 PM

125. If you didn't care you wouldn't have made the statement and continued to argue it.

You may well not care what I think but you are trying to influence opinions here by using your long past status as a grunt in military intelligence as bonafides to neutralize counter points.

This is not to dog you but to jog the thoughts of those reading the exchange to the very real idea that your experience and those of folks much further up the food chain in much more recent times is probably divergent.
You didn't hit the revolving doors or become a political adviser. You kept your lips buttoned and left the game behind a lifetime ago and only knew it from the level of a fairly low level military operative, you weren't even commissioned, if I recall correctly, much less in field operations or especially the Director level loop.
Nothing wrong with that, saying so is not a slight.
It is citing a different perspective may well be operative that you cannot speak to from your experience much more than a school kid, it isn't even an apples to bananas comparison and sure isn't apples to apples.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #125)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:46 PM

156. You do not know me.

I will leave it at that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:33 PM

85. Nonsense. I'm willing to beleive that your experience in the intelligence business has no relevance

 

to the current situation. In contrast, you do not have any factual basis for claiming to believe that they do not have intelligence from friends in the Pentagon or other sources.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #85)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:35 PM

86. OK.

You will believe whatever you believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:42 PM

93. Exactly. Therefore, they know nothing for certain and very much less than

President Obama.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #93)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:44 PM

94. That is almost certainly true.

Not a popular view in this thread, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #93)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:39 AM

188. How are you in a position to judge what they know vs. what Obama knows? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:47 PM

17. K & R !!!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:55 PM

22. Hang the facts, hang reason, hang legality: the RW PNAC agenda must move ahead at all cost

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to indepat (Reply #22)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:57 PM

25. Not a single fact on Damascus Syrian chemical attack offered. Not one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #25)


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:56 PM

24. This entire article boils down to 3 meager paragraphs containing not one fact, no evidence.

No quotes, no analysis.

It's pathetic that some DU'ers insist on combing the internet to find anything to push their conspiracy theory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KittyWampus (Reply #24)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:05 PM

30. Well, see, the people who agree with one's position are experts.

Those who do not are not.

Simple, huh?

I have identical credentials to any of those people. I am also a (former) intelligence worker. I, too, can claim that "someone" told me something. I, too, cannot name that person because....top secret....

I'm opposed to bombing Syria, too, but I don't claim to have exclusive information I do not have, as the signers of this letter do. The letter is worthless as evidence of anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:14 PM

35. Barbara Lee, who was the only member of Congress to Vote against the Afghanistan War Authorization

Barbara Lee, who was the only member of Congress to Vote against the Afghanistan War Authorization, has seen the evidence and has stated she is convinced it was the Assad regime that was behind the chemical attack, and while she sympathizes with the victims, she is not convinced a military response is appropriate.

That's a much more intellectually honest position than arguing the rebels gassed themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #35)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:47 PM

164. Intellectually honest?

The UN says the rebels used chemical gas in May. Or are they part of the conspiracy also? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/05/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #35)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 02:21 AM

192. Or like the Iranians &quot;Gassed Themselves&quot; - or So We Were Told When The USA Was Backing Saddam

 

If the "rebels" had "gassed Bandar Bush", that might be akin to "themselves," to use your analogy.

... or like the Spanish "suicided themselves" by blowing up the USS Maine in Havana harbor, Vietnamese in the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident," and etc.

False Flags are a FACT of starting wars, and have been for a long time. So please put away the "conspiracy theory" frame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #30)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:05 PM

136. "I have identical credentials to any of those people."

You have "identical credentials" to Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)?

Mary Ann Wright (born 1947) is a former United States Army colonel and retired U.S. State Department official, known for her outspoken opposition to the Iraq War. She received the State Department Award for Heroism in 1997, after helping to evacuate several thousand people during the civil war in Sierra Leone. She is most noted for having been one of three State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. Wright was also a passenger on the Challenger 1, which along with the Mavi Marmara, was part of the Gaza flotilla.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Wright


As the BOG likes to say:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WorseBeforeBetter (Reply #136)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:35 PM

170. Notice

MM doesn't respond to your post. Just so others know, there are a lot of pencil pushers/typist that have the "identical credentials" as MM.

Say it isn't so MM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Caretha (Reply #170)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:20 PM

174. Oh, I noticed.

I mean, seriously, "identical credentials" as Ray McGovern and Coleen Rowley?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:07 PM

32. General Akbar?

In the run up to Gulf II Cheney continuously rejected intel that did not fit his needs. This is not the case with this administration.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #32)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:08 PM

34. And you know this HOW?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:21 PM

36. Is Consurtium News a reputable source?

I guess it possible for different intelligence agencies to produce contradictory reports.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:26 PM

38. And if this is legit, why didn't the signers send their letter to major national media sources?

You would think they would want this to be heard by as many people as possible -- not just the readers of Consortium News.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:52 PM

49. Thats why I am skeptical

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #38)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:21 PM

128. i know, right? why isn't this in the Judy Miller Times?

Does Consortium News even have a bra advert on page 3?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #128)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:31 PM

131. Or the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, the Seattle Times or any number

of reputable, well-distributed papers that would vet the letter and talk to its signers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #131)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:36 PM

132. and none of that matters to me. what matters is the accuracy of this group in past..

as opposed to that of the Honorable and Courageous John Kerry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #131)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:56 PM

145. Puh-leeze...the WP and the other "papers of record" don't want to vet the letter

and talk to its signers. In fact, that's the last thing they want to do. After all, that would be real investigative journalism, and the MSM doesn't do that any more. That kind of stuff went out of style shortly after Woodward (or was it Bernstein?) met Deep Throat at 1 a.m. in a parking structure to talk about what did the President (Nixon) know and when did he know it.

More important: They would learn that everything VIPS alleges checks out. Obama and Kerry would be exposed as liars or fools or both in front of the whole country. A "crisis of confidence" or worse--a crisis of legitimacy, and we can't have THAT!

Well, guess what, folks...this IS a crisis of legitimacy, but not everyone knows it yet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #36)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:49 PM

45. Apparently the OP thinks so.

I'm not so sure. But, I don't have time today to explore that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to iandhr (Reply #36)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:47 AM

226. Consortium is among the most reliable publications, but...

as is often the case...

You are confusing "source" with "source."

A story has publisher, writer and sources. They can be separate.

This was published in Consortium News but is not a CN story.

It is an independent statement by VIPS, as the byline and signatures make clear. It has been published all around. If you happen to see it on a compiler site like Infowars (or DU!) that doesn't make it anything other than a VIPS authored statement. (Citing various sources besides the logic of their authors - their accuracy and validity are separate questions.)

Yes, I'll take Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley, Ann Wright, David McMichael and others on that list as generally more reliable sources with a better track record, each of them especially since they left the national security state. Those inside the NSS at any time tend not to be reliable!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:23 PM

37. But I thought who did it didn't matter. They want their damn war and, by god, they'll it

come hell or high water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:41 PM

42. Thanks Catherina - Glad to see you posted this

I was about to, as I just found the same info on Michael Moore's website, by
Ray McGovern.

I hope Bandar Bush gets the recognition he richly deserves for the CW attack.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #42)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:53 PM

123. I hope he does too - not only the recognition but the reward. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:48 PM

44. Oh, I think that Assad's forces did it. The evidence for it appears much stronger than this

and I think this effort to try and prove it wasn't Assad is counterproductive.

I don't support military strikes whoever did it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #44)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:11 PM

112. Does not make logical sense

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:21 PM - Edit history (1)

Bashar Assad's military is gaining the upper hand in this war with opponents/insurgents/Al Qaeda/etc.

Why would Assad want US to get involved against him?
He has already killed over 100,000 Syrians. He has plenty of Russian & Iran supplied weapons to kill. Why would he need to kill 1400 using chemical weapons and get US invoved against him? Makes no sense whatsoever.

edited typo's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to golfguru (Reply #112)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:18 PM

127. Well, there's always the possibility that it was not the intention

it's funny, isn't it? We have all these DU'ers quick to point out that the difference between the US turning Syrians into flying meat and Syria doing the same, is "intent" - that since we don't mean to slaughter them, it's okay and we forgive ourselves (and they should forgive us too, the moon-worshiping savages!) but Assad, ooooh, he's an evil little ape who did it all on purpose!

Except... we can't prove that at all.

Assad's not an irrational or stupid man. He is not Saddam by any shot - and he's certainly no Hitler (who contrary to the History Channel's assertions, was neither very bright nor very collected). Why the hell is he going to have chemical weapons fired, immediately after the UN inspectors show up - the UN inspectors he invited to investigate alleged uses of chemical weapons! - at a battle where Syrian forces were winning? it would be stupid and irrational.

Does that mean that Assad's forces were not responsible? Not necessarily, though it remains within the bounds of possibility someone else used the weapons (sorry, bog-dwellers, secret intelligence doesn't convince me). It's possible that what we have is a case of someone having grabbed the wrong goddamned munitions... or even possible that the commander involved decided to "do things his own way."

We don't know. or, if we do, the damning evidence has not been provided to the public, and it looks like it will not be provided, so the public has to assume - hey - We don't know!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #127)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:23 PM

153. k&r...your writing style is...

I like your writing style! Gentle, humorous, informative & thoughtful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #127)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 10:53 PM

173. + Infinity! - nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:49 PM

46. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:54 PM

50. BUT, does is matter?!?!

There's profit to be made, for Pete's sake!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 02:58 PM

52. This is beginning

to sound like Iraq 2013. WTH???

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:00 PM

54. I find it hard to believe the rebels used chemical weapons

 

The rebels would need to be crazy to draw the US into a battle against them. The US would make the Assad attacks look like child's play and the rebels or the terrorists would know this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lifelong Dem (Reply #54)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:26 PM

72. What the hell do you mean, " . . . draw the US into a battle against them?"

We are planning to attack Assad, not the rebels opposing him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #72)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:28 PM

76. No kidding

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:11 PM

60. LOL!! Larry Johnson, he of No Quarter and the "Whitey Tape."



Listen UP. Former intelligence professionals no longer have access to anything more than they see on TV. Just like you and I see.

They are informed by their personal opinions just like you and I are. And Larry Johnson has a video of Rush Limbaugh saying President Obama planned and planted the CW, right on the front page of his blog No Quarter right this minute. Check it out. Then read all about what an incompetent weakling Obama is, in Larry's own words. BTW, HE'S A REPUBLICAN.

Make what you will of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:17 PM

66. The very same.

Looking up the signers in Google was interesting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:28 PM

75. Whatever Senator Kerry had access to before the Iraq War started was useless

 

While whatever the VIPS group had access to allowed them to oppose the Iraq War.

There goes your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Krout (Reply #75)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:37 PM

89. Everyone who watched 60 Minutes KNEW the aluminum tubes

weren't centrifuges, as the Bush Admin claimed. That show aired months before Powell went before the UN.

So, WE ALL SAW IT ON TV AND KNEW BUSH WAS LYING.

Look it up yourself. Dan Rather did the report. It's why they brought him down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to David Krout (Reply #75)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:10 PM

147. Kerry also seemed to forget what bringing down the strongman Saddam Hussein

might mean for Iraq and the rest of the Middle East.

The Saudis, and probably the Jordanians, had persuaded the first Bush administration that taking out Saddam would probably mean the disintegration of Iraq with bad consequences throughout the area.

Iraq is a sectarian mess aligned with Iran, pretty much as predicted. Sunni Muslim Arabs and Christians have left in droves, and the country seems to have become a haven for radicals of every stripe.

I have seen and heard reports that a Syria without Assad would disintegrate like Iraq.

How many more people would die from that?

And the Russians were not allies of Saddam. I don't mean that the cold war would return if we attack Assad, but the Russians can cause problems all over, even though their power is diminished from what it was during the height of the cold war.

In addition, I wonder how much of the Obama administration's collective thinking is influenced by the guilt that some former Clinton administration officials feel for their failure to stop the killing in Rwanda. The President himself brought up that tragic situation in one of his statements recently. While the situation in Rwanda and Burundi was horrific, the US is in a much different situation now than it was in the '90s. Back then, we had not exhausted ourselves in a wholly unnecessary war and another that may have been necessary in party, but was expanded unnecessarily and is still going on. The economy was booming.

I'm not someone who thinks that the past should be completely put behind us, as our President so often does, but I don't think that we should always respond to different situations in the present just because of something that happened in the past.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DevonRex (Reply #60)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:29 PM

80. Did the 12 people who sign this statement have to do with the 'Whitey' tape?

 

Have you ever heard of "ad-hominem attack"?

You would be guilty of this fallacy if you said something about the person (or in this case, one of the people) who signed it and nothing about what the statement said.

Did you do that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:18 PM

68. That pretty well shits the damn bed!

I guess President Putin did know what he was talking about when he told us the evidence against Assad was flimsy at best.

They say when you investigate a crime, look for who had motive and opportunity. Assad had opportunity but no motive. The Syrian rebels had both motive and opportunity.

(Israel's government also had motive and opportunity, however, for an American to suggest they were responsible would be considered tantamount to treason, so I won't do that.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #68)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:28 PM

78. Instead they're persisting. Grayson and Amash not impressed with their bogus intel

On Syria Vote, Trust, but Verify - By Alan Grayson

On Syria Vote, Trust, but Verify

By ALAN GRAYSON
September 6, 2013

WASHINGTON — THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.

On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was “no.”

The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, “social media” postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached — not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn’t possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)

...


The danger of the administration’s approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report “doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.”

The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, “it was clear that ‘the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.’ ”
...

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm.

...

Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/07/opinion/on-syria-vote-trust-but-verify.html



Justin Amash ‏@repjustinamash

Attended another classified briefing on #Syria & reviewed add'l materials. Now more skeptical than ever. Can't believe Pres is pushing war.


Justin Amash ‏@repjustinamash 32m

If Americans could read classified docs, they'd be even more against #Syria action. Obama admn's public statements are misleading at best.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #68)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:35 PM

87. You missed the first element in a crime-means

Which regime has one of the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the Middle East?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #87)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:07 PM

146. OK, I'll bite.

Which one?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #68)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:53 PM

134. You forget the third leg of the triad: "Means."

The difficulty I have with accepting the elegant argument that the rebels did it themselves to provoke world opinion against Mr Assad, is with wondering where they would have gotten the ordnance in the first place. Okay, not really a big problem (for that matter, Israel could have given it to them and told them to have a party), but the government does bear greater suspicion simply due to access.

But the "motive" leg of the triangle bugs me, too. The government really had no need to escalate things at this time, and the "unhinged subordinate" scenario strikes me as relatively lame. If we want to evaluate things totally on motive, then IMO the rebels are the ones with the big, black target on their backs. And some of those fanatics will break as many eggs as necessary to complete their omelette.

In any event, as clear and cogent as this memo is, it cites not one fact. So it does not constitute evidence. As a cautionary voice, though, I find it compelling enough. My biggest and final question remains: why do we not want to let the UN try to sort this out?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to malthaussen (Reply #134)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:12 PM

149. Islamist factions among the rebels have already said they have chemical weapons.

They said that they got them from Assad's stockpiles in bases they captured. They have also bragged they intend to use them. Perhaps they already have?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to another_liberal (Reply #68)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 11:11 AM

209. Assad could have a motive

He might want to terrify the insurgents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #209)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:19 PM

215. Assad is currently winning the Civil War.

To suggest he needed to "terrify" the losing side seems unlikely. That is more of a grasping-at-straws argument, in my opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:29 PM

79. Your title is a lie - I expect better from you

They are all former officials. You know that very well, but chose to lie in your thread title. That title is extremely misleading - there is a huge difference between what actual officials who have access to the current intelligence say, and what former officials are claiming from un-named sources.

We don't need lying propaganda in this debate. Please change it, for your own reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #79)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:47 PM

97. Sadly, the balance of opinion appears to be with the OP

in this thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to muriel_volestrangler (Reply #79)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:02 PM

135. so which actual officials have access?

not our congressmen according to greysen

We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The “security state” is drowning in its own phlegm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:30 PM

81. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

Help 'the terrorists' or help Assad. OR stay completely out of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:32 PM

83. Would all respondents to this OP who believe 9/11 was an inside job please step forward?

Yup, I thought so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:38 PM

90. VIPS? All retired with no current intelligence on the matter.

You can always find some group somewhere to support your point of view, but, just because they say it, doesn't make it true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wisteria (Reply #90)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:47 PM

98. yep, that's what everyone said about these guys in the lead up to iraq..

really, what would they know? these former intelligence officers who are talking to friends and colleagues that do have access to current intel. Kerry is a courageous and honorable man, just like he was in 2003.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 03:39 PM

91. I cannot find nowhere that the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

 

Had publish anything ...just people who say they have...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #91)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:03 PM

104. "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity"

 

Never heard of that agency before.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rebellious Republican (Reply #104)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:05 PM

107. The link say that they are the one who make that statement...but I cannot found a single

 

Serious source that report that this group had make a recent statement...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #107)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:42 PM

163. Look harder. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #163)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:41 AM

179. It's a fraud. Confirmed.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #91)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:30 AM

184. Your use of a double negative is suspicious. What nation do you represent? nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #184)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:33 AM

185. Thats the new kind of racist slurs on DU ? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #185)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:37 AM

187. That sentence doesnt even make sense. Are you having trouble translating? What is

your agenda here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #187)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:42 AM

189. Oh right, I remember you, you are the one who do not succeed about one of my video...

 

Get lost.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #189)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:50 AM

190. What is your first language. Your sentences dont make any sense. You seem to be

propagandizing this Syrian conflict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #190)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:00 PM

221. I agree . . .

"Sand wind" is clearly pushing an agenda on Syria, just as he did in regard to the Egyptian coup. I have my suspicions as to what that agenda is, but I will let them remain unstated for now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #91)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:56 AM

229. I'm sorry that you have no Internet.

But if you can't find an impressive history to each of the names on that list, then that could only be because you don't have access to the Web. I'm sure basic lessons in how to use google are available in your town?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #229)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:59 AM

230. Since you don't have any source to back this frauds, I suppose that you don't have Internet ? Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #230)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:04 AM

231. You made the incredible claim, sir.

You said you could find nothing about this group.

I didn't say that, you did.

Every one of those names can be put into a search engine. Most people use the one at google.com.

Everyone of those names has a history.

So the only explanation for your otherwise incredible claim that you can find nothing about this group is that you have no Internet. It's a shame.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #231)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:07 AM

232. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, sir....nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #232)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:09 AM

234. A fool is a fool is a fool...

and at some point it's foolish to engage with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #231)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 09:07 AM

232. A fraud is a fraud is a fraud, sir....nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:00 PM

103. Whoo-hoo! Now we know what 9/11 Truthers and Larry "Whitey Tape" Johnson have to say!

This Obama hate is getting more and more pathetic every day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bolo Boffin (Reply #103)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:09 PM

111. What is this hierarchy, a southern person for Obama.

 

You must be black, gay, or inbred being from Alabama to defend that arab muslim POS!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:03 PM

105. Larry Johnson previously claimed he had a tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey"

and denouncing white people from the pulpit of Trinity church...

http://prospect.org/article/larry-johnsons-strange-trip

This is the moran you present as a source???? You've got to be kidding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:05 PM

106. Larry Johnson? This kind of crap makes

the case for bombing Syria moreso than Obama could.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:07 PM

110. Its a forgery : No, any U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials are saying that to Obama. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:28 PM

115. Get your copies out or go find one

remember Robert Greenwald's UNCOVERED: THE WAR ON IRAQ

It had a lot of ex generals and ex government officials warning of the disaster to come...They were right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncovered:_The_War_on_Iraq
Interviewees
David Albright, Robert Baer, Milt Bearden, Rand Beers, Bill Christison, David Corn, Philip Coyle, John Dean, Patrick Eddington, Chas Freeman, Graham Fuller, Mel Goodman, Larry Johnson, David Kay, John Brady Kiesling, Karen Kwiatkowski, Patrick Lang, David C. MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Clare Short, Stanfield Turner, Henry Waxman, Thomas E. White, Joseph C. Wilson, Mary Ann Wright, Peter Zimmerman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:37 PM

117. "Co-workers" of veterans?

What information could co-workers of retired military personnel have, and where did they get it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:39 PM

118. I was sure the Syrians did this until I studied VIPS memo

At first, when I read the memo and thought to myself,

'Anyone can make assertions like this and there is no references or facts to back this up. What kind of anti war group is this and what kind of axe do they have to grind'.

At a closer internet examination of this group however, it seemed to me that these were patriots who were utterly disgusted with the way intelligence is used in this country for political ends rather than in the search for truth. So they banded together in common cause.

If anyone is interested, they should really read VIPS memos to GWB pre Iraqi invasion. It's scary of just how spot on VIPS was regarding the fabricated intelligence that lead us into the Iraq war.

If this group was RIGHT ON then, they may just might be RIGHT ON now.

http://warisacrime.org/vips




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IsItJustMe (Reply #118)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:23 PM

129. They were right on then, and they are right on now.

Re "If this group was RIGHT ON then, they may just might be RIGHT ON now."

http://warisacrime.org/vips

warisacrime.org was originally called "After Downing Street" in reference to the famous leaked Downing Street memo. I remember exactly where I was when I read that famous line: "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Mostly I remember the horror as the meaning sank in. It was similar to the sinking horror I felt on November 21, 1963, listening to Walter Cronkite make a dreaded announcement to the nation. I knew the world I had lived in until then was forever changed. I could not know in what way and neither could anyone else, but I knew it could never be the same world again.

Thanks for the link. I think I'll go read those VIPS memos to GWB. It's been a while and I need to refresh my memory.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IsItJustMe (Reply #118)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:27 PM

130. exactly. this group has some serious street cred.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IsItJustMe (Reply #118)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 06:15 PM

139. Iraq isn't analagous, and the OP does not contain any verifiable facts.

It's basically a bunch of people saying Assad didn't do it, and asserting that the rebels did.

The fact that people are willing, in the face of the evidence against Assad, to blame someone else for this atrocity on someone else is telling.

I mean, Saddam had no WMD. There was a chemical attack in Syria. This group is attempting to blame the rebels.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #139)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:37 PM

219. After seeing how intelligence was fabricated so that GWB could

have his war, it should come as no surprise that many people in this country are just a little bit leary about our intelligence and how it is used.

You say that there are no facts in the VIPS memo, and that is true, but do you see any hard fact on the data that our government is showing up. None what-so-ever.

They say that they can't release that info because it is top secret.

I do believe that many are past the days when our government can tell us something and we will believe it just because our government says that it is so.

We need hard facts because it will be a complete nightmare if this country gets into another military conflict over lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 04:57 PM

124. It doesn't matter to me

who gassed those poor people. It simply doesn't rise to the level of an act of war against the United States. Our government and corporate media's subservience to Israeli and Saudi foreign policy interests is far more alarming than who used the gas. It would not surprise me to eventually learn that Saudi Jihadists working with Mossad agents carried out the attack, and until some kind of real fucking evidence is presented to the contrary, that's as good a guess as the government's and probably better. Any American credulous enough to believe anything said by anyone beating a war drum in this matter should have to hand in his voters card.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #124)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:12 PM

150. Completely agree! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sulphurdunn (Reply #124)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:29 PM

160. Yep

it is bad, and if the INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY and or UN felt it needed dealt with and needed our help, then so be it.

But, there are COUNTLESS other countries across this planet where people are dying at the hands of their government, and no one could careless.

Happening all over Africa and no one cares one bit. But, the middle east, where there is oil, and people want to go to war.

And, it is a mystery to some why those people hate the US?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 05:40 PM

133. Interesting that VIPS cites a mirror image of a US-Israeli-Jordanian op reported by DEBKA on 08/17

VIPS says this was a Turkish-Saudi provocation, Both sources might be easily dismissed were it not for the fact that some sort of foreign-trained and sponsored paramilitary operation is supposed to have set off an incident leading to US intervention, and that was reported on 8/17 - at least 72 hours before the chemical attack in Gorta was reported.

DEBKA reported that two echelons of special trained commandos had entered Syria, one from Lebanon and the other from an undisclosed point of entry.

I would put forward the possibility that they may be describing two sides of the same operation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #133)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:14 PM

151. Generally, I don't give much credence to DEBKA,

but this is an interesting coincidence.

Do you know if folks from the old "RU" site from the 2d Iraq War are posting anywhere? They had the best info back then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #151)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:41 PM

162. Nor do I. But, that one was hard to ignore. Is this the .ru site you referenced? Still up.

Still outrageous: http://www.iraq-war.ru/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leveymg (Reply #162)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:48 PM

165. I don't think so.

Either that or it has morphed into something else.

The RU site that I remembered appeared to be something of a blog by intelligence folks, either on the ground in Iraq or with unfiltered access to signals intelligence coming from Iraq. It was very rough in its approach and its graphic presentation was at best a mess.

This seems more like RT TV, which gives the Russian/Putin position on most things.

Too bad.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to amandabeech (Reply #165)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 08:40 AM

199. Here's a more likely RU - do you remember any screennames from way back when?

http://www.agentura.ru/english/ - English-language version of a Russian site that's critical of the FSD! Site covers Russian and other intelligence agencies. Now very professional looking. Established back in 2000, a contemporary discussion about it is posted here: http://cryptome.org/ru-intel.htm

This one reminds me of the British Counterspy site of the mid-2000s.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 07:54 PM

157. If this memorandum is real, ...

the 'Pentagon Papers' by comparison are nothing. This is in 'real' time.

If this memorandum indeed has the signature of Ray McGovern, and validity is confirmed, Obama should rapidly start retreating from his administration's, position. Anything less, and justified calls for impeachment will be thundering for the last two thirds of his second term. If this memorandum is genuine, an the attack proceeds, Obama should face a date, at the Hague.

I hope, this is not the 'hope we can believe in'. For me it would be, de'ja'vu, just another war criminal, where is that hope we have been waiting for.

Find and verify the source of this memorandum! NOW.

If this is real, great post Catherina.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CRH (Reply #157)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:39 PM

161. It's real. Ray McGovern has it up on his blog. Thomas Drake tweeted it out, so did Robert Parry.

Ray McGovern has it up on his blog http://warisacrime.org/content/whos-lying-brennan-obama-or-both

Michael Moore has it up on his site http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/mike-friends-blog/obama-warned-syrian-intel and so does David Swanson

It's a follow-up to the the letter the same group sent General Dempsey a few days ago. Ray McGovern mentions it in this interview from a few days ago. They sent it to General Dempsey to remind him that he took an oath to the constitution and that "if you obey an illegal order to start a war, that puts you in the same category as the Nazi Generals who knew they were obeying illegal orders". (minute 30:00






An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria (Protect the Constitution or Resign)


Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

During a very interesting conversation, Ray McGovern discussed how General Dempsey and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff is not willing to go to war without Congressional Authorization.

There's an uproar in the military. If there's one thing all soldiers and officers know, it's their constitution and who authorizes war. They take their oath to the constitution very seriously.

What made Obama blink?

We did! A lot of us. Look if you obey an illegal order to start a


Here is the letter than McGovern references at minute 29:30.

An Appeal to Gen. Dempsey on Syria
August 30, 2013

Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, has spoken soberly about the dangers from any military strike on Syria, but press reports indicate President Obama is still set on launching cruise missiles in the coming days, an action that former U.S. intelligence professionals say should prompt Dempsey’s resignation.

MEMORANDUM FOR: General Martin Dempsey, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

SUBJECT: Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution

Dear Gen. Dempsey:

Summary: We refer to your acknowledgment, in your letter of July 19 to Sen. Carl Levin on Syria, that a “decision to use force is not one that any of us takes lightly. It is no less than an act of war.” It appears that the President may order such an act of war without proper Congressional authorization.

As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that – from private to general – it is one’s duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.


Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

In responding to questions on military options voiced at your re-nomination hearing on July 18, your letter to the chair of the Committee on Armed Services reflects that you acknowledge Congress’s Constitutional role with respect to U.S. “acts of war.” Equally important, you addressed these words to Sen. Levin: “You deserve my best military advice on how military force could be used in order to decide whether it should be used.” (emphasis in your letter).

The options your letter addressed regarding potential use of military force included five being considered at the time: (1) Train, Advise, Assist the Opposition; (2) Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes; (3) Establish a No-Fly Zone; (4) Establish Buffer Zones; (5) Control Chemical Weapons. You were quite candid about the risks and costs attached to each of the five options, and stressed the difficulty of staying out of the Syrian civil war, once the U.S. launched military action.

‘Tailored, Limited’ Strike Option

Presumably, there has not been enough time to give Sen. Levin’s committee an equivalent assessment of the implications of the new option described by the President Wednesday evening as a “tailored, limited” response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21 that he has been told was carried out by Syrian government forces. President Obama said, without elaboration, that a retaliatory strike is “needed … to protect U.S. security.”

It is precisely this kind of unsupported claim (so embarrassingly reminiscent of the spurious ones used more than a decade ago to “justify” attacks on Iraq) that needs to be subjected to rigorous analysis by both the Pentagon and Congress BEFORE the President orders military action. For some unexplained reason of urgency, that order may come within the next day or two. With no wish to prejudge the results of analysis presumably under way, we feel it our responsibility to tell you now that, speaking out of several hundred years of collective experience in intelligence and national security matters, we strongly believe that the President’s reference to a military strike on Syria being “needed to protect U.S. security” cannot bear close scrutiny.

In all candor, the credibility of his chief national security advisers – and his own credibility – have been seriously damaged in recent months, giving all the more urgency and importance to the need for Congress to exercise its Constitutional role regarding war. And, as usual, there are serious problems with the provenance and nature of the “intelligence” that is being used to support the need for military action.

In your July 19 letter to Sen. Levin you emphasized: “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that the use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. … Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid. We should act in accordance with the law, and to the extent possible, in concert with our allies and partners.” (emphasis supplied)

This last sentence raises, first and foremost, the question of what the Constitution says of the role of Congress in authorizing a military attack that, in your words, “is no less than an act of war” (further discussed below).

It also raises the important issue of how seriously we should take the result of democratic Parliamentary procedures among our allies. Although not legally required to do so, British Prime Minister David Cameron on Thursday sought Parliamentary approval for military action against Syria and was rebuffed. With as much grace as he could summon, Cameron said the British people had expressed their will and he would not flout it (even though he could do so, legally in the British system):

“It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly,” a tense-looking Cameron said immediately after the vote.

French President Francois Hollande has said his country may still strike Syria to “punish” it for allegedly using chemical weapons, despite the British Parliament’s failure to endorse military action. If Fiji can be lined up again, that would make a coalition of at least three.

The Fundamentals: Congress’s Role

Before the President spoke on Wednesday, the ranking member on the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice, Jerrold Nadler issued a formal statement titled: Constitution Requires Congressional Authorization on Use of Force Against Syria. Nadler wrote:

“The Constitution requires that, barring an attack on the United States or an imminent threat to the U.S., any decision to use military force can only be made by Congress – not by the President. The decision to go to war – and we should be clear, launching a military strike on another country, justified or not, is an act of war – is reserved by the Constitution to the American people acting through their elected representatives in Congress.

“Since there is no imminent threat to the United States, there is no legal justification for bypassing the Constitutionally-required Congressional authorization. ‘Consultation’ with Congress is not sufficient. The Constitution requires Congressional authorization.

“The American people deserve to have this decision debated and made in the open, with all the facts and arguments laid out for public review and debate, followed by a Congressional vote. If the President believes that military action against Syria is necessary, he should immediately call Congress back into session and seek the Constitutionally-required authorization.”

As of Thursday, more than a third of the House of Representatives have spoken out against being marginalized, as they were before Libya, many insisting that there be Congressional debate and a vote before any military strike on Syria.

In addition, Republican House Speaker John Boehner sent Obama a letter Wednesday urging him to “make the case to the American people and Congress for how potential military action will secure American national security interests, preserve America’s credibility, deter the future use of chemical weapons, and, critically, be a part of our broader policy and strategy.”

The President called Boehner on Thursday to brief him “on the status of deliberations over Syria,” according to a Boehner spokesman, who added that, “during the call, the speaker sought answers to concerns outlined in his letter, including the legal justification for any military strike.” After the call, Boehner reportedly complained that his questions had not been answered.

Holding Congress in Contempt

Elementary school children learn that, in view of the Founders’ experience with English kings, it was not by chance that, in crafting the Constitution, they took care to give to our elected representatives in Congress the exclusive “Power To declare War (and) To raise and support Armies.” (Article 1, Section 8). The somber historical consequences of letting this key power of Congress fall into disuse after WWII – in effect, allowing Presidents to act like Kings – speak eloquently to the folly of ignoring Article 1, Section 8.

And yet, there is no sign that President Barack Obama intends to request Congressional authorization (as opposed to “consultation” with chosen Members) before he orders military action against Syria. Indeed, he and his top appointees have been openly contemptuous of the Constitutional role of Congress in such matters.

Obama’s former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta was smoother and more wise-old-handish than his predecessors in emasculating Congressional power. Thanks to Panetta, we have direct insight into how the Obama administration may strike Syria with very little consultation (not to mention authorization) from Congress.

Several of us remember watching you in some distress sitting next to your then-boss Panetta as he tried to put Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Alabama) in his place, at a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee on March 7, 2012. Chafing belatedly over the unauthorized nature of the war in Libya, Sessions asked repeatedly what “legal basis” would the Obama administration rely on to do in Syria what it did in Libya.

Panetta stonewalled time after time, making it abundantly clear that the Obama administration does not believe it needs Congressional approval for wars like the one in Libya. “I am really baffled,” said Sessions. “The only legal authority that’s required to deploy the U.S. military (in combat) is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.”

Panetta’s response did nothing to relieve Sessions’s bafflement: “Let me just for the record be clear again, Senator, so there is no misunderstanding. When it comes to national defense, the President has the authority under the Constitution to act to defend this country, and we will, Sir.”

You will remember Panetta’s attitude, which Sen. Sessions called “breathtaking.” You said nothing then, and we can understand that. But, frankly, we are hoping that you had that awkward experience in mind when you reminded Sen. Levin that, “We should act in accordance with the law.”

Clearly, there is an important Constitutional issue here. The question is whether you will again choose to be silent, or whether you will give Secretary Chuck Hagel and the President notice that your oath to support and defend the Constitution precludes complicity in end-running Congress on Syria.

If, Resign

We do not understand why the White House has so far been unwilling to await the results of the UN inspection in Damascus, but we are all too familiar with what happens once the juggernaut starts rolling to war. However, if despite Thursday’s vote in the British Parliament and the increased opposition in Congress to war without the authorization of Congress, the President decides to order an attack on Syria, we urge you to act in accordance with your solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution, as well as your own conscience.

In such circumstances, we believe strongly that you should resign and explain your reasons at once to the American people.


Very Respectfully,

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

William Binney, Senior Scientist, NSA (ret.)

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Dan Ellsberg, VIPS Member Emeritus

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Tom Maertens, Foreign Service Officer & NSC Director for Nonproliferation (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Larry Wilkerson, Col., US Army (ret); Chief of Staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/30/an-appeal-to-gen-dempsey-on-syria/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #161)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:58 PM

167. Then Obama is toast, if he continues, ...

desist or acquire a date at the Hague.

I will be interested to see which side the media flops, in the next day or two.

Great post, and Thank You.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CRH (Reply #157)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 08:54 PM

166. "A war the Pentagon doesn’t want" By Robert H. Scales, retired Army major general

This may interest you too

A war the Pentagon doesn’t want
By Robert H. Scales, Published: September 5

Robert H. Scales, a retired Army major general, is a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College.


The tapes tell the tale. Go back and look at images of our nation’s most senior soldier, Gen. Martin Dempsey, and his body language during Tuesday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Syria. It’s pretty obvious that Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, doesn’t want this war. As Secretary of State John Kerry’s thundering voice and arm-waving redounded in rage against Bashar al-Assad’s atrocities, Dempsey was largely (and respectfully) silent.

Dempsey’s unspoken words reflect the opinions of most serving military leaders. By no means do I profess to speak on behalf of all of our men and women in uniform. But I can justifiably share the sentiments of those inside the Pentagon and elsewhere who write the plans and develop strategies for fighting our wars. After personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days, I feel confident that what follows represents the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals who have been intimate witnesses to the unfolding events that will lead the United States into its next war.

They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it. So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our “responsibility to protect” the world’s innocents. Prospective U.S. action in Syria is not about threats to American security. The U.S. military’s civilian masters privately are proud that they are motivated by guilt over slaughters in Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo and not by any systemic threat to our country.

...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/us-military-planners-dont-support-war-with-syria/2013/09/05/10a07114-15bb-11e3-be6e-dc6ae8a5b3a8_story.html




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Reply #166)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:55 PM

172. Related.

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/31/ignoring-bloody-mideast-lessons/

Ignoring Bloody Mideast Lessons
August 31, 2013

The Obama administration appears blind to the history that when U.S. officials have lashed out in anger at Middle East adversaries, the consequences have usually been bad and bloody. The Iraq War is an obvious cautionary tale but so too is Ronald Reagan’s shelling of Lebanon in 1983, as Ann Wright recalls.
By Ann Wright

<>

President Obama has not spelled out the possible consequences of a military attack on Syria, but U.S. military leaders are warning about the risks. In a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey wrote last month, “As we weigh our options, we should be able to conclude with some confidence that use of force will move us toward the intended outcome. …

“Once we take action, we should be prepared for what comes next. Deeper involvement is hard to avoid.”

General James Mattis, who retired recently as head of the U.S. Central Command, said last month at a security conference that the United States has “no moral obligation to do the impossible” in Syria. “If Americans take ownership of this, this is going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war.”

<>

SEE:

http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/gen-dempsey-responds-to-levins-request-for-assessment-of-options-for-use-of-us-military-force-in-syria
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-military-officers-have-deep-doubts-about-impact-wisdom-of-a-us-strike-on-syria/2013/08/29/825dd5d4-10ee-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story_1.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proverbialwisdom (Reply #172)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:44 AM

180. Bookmarked. I really wonder what went through his mind when he read this

“As seasoned intelligence and military professionals solemnly sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, we have long been aware that – from private to general – it is one’s duty not to obey an illegal order. If such were given, the honorable thing would be to resign, rather than be complicit.”

Thank you

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 09:45 PM

171. If there is a shadow of doubt .. then we've go no business bombing that country.

They seem awfully in a hurry to get this passed by Congress. I'm sure CNN, FOX, NBC, ABC etc .. the usual media folks anyway.. have their "people" in Damascus .. let's see, at the 4 Seasons? Well anyway, you get the picture .. Isn't it funny we sit back and munch on popcorn while we watch this thing play out on television? How sick is that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YOHABLO (Reply #171)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:56 AM

182. Indeed. Stomach-turning. As revolting as the drum bangers n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sat Sep 7, 2013, 11:48 PM

175. Ok I got confirmation, this statement did not exist. Nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #175)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:50 AM

181. oh thank goodness..

can you confirm your confirmation?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #181)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:24 AM

183. Impossible! But only because I have confirmation the post you replied to

did not exist!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #175)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 01:34 AM

186. You got what? I suspect you have a mission here. nm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sand Wind (Reply #175)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:59 AM

204. Your continued disruption noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 05:14 AM

196. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 06:06 AM

198. the casus belli was staged

I'll go with the opinion posted here rather than the belligerent liars in the administration. the neo con foment a war ploys are getting old at this point. the American public has figured it out. Even Hillary had the smarts to get out before this diplomatic disaster and she was one of the worst secretaries of state in US history. the current crew will go down in infamy if they attack Syria. Our diplomatic isolation is obvious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:28 AM

202. The title of this thread

Is very misleading. You need to put the word "former" at the beginning of the title. Leaving that out gives the impression that Obama is going against the advice of his "current" intelligence team, which is absolutely not the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vdogg (Reply #202)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 10:34 AM

207. Is the title in this thread, ...

any more misleading than Obama and Kerry's statements. Have you seen the legislation they are asking congress to approve. It allows far more than limited strikes. It allows for the destruction of the entire Syrian infrastructure, in much the same as they flattened Irag in 1991 and 2003 prior to war.

So if the title of this thread is misleading, what do you call this legislation in comparison to the statements of Obama and Kerry?

http://www.thenation.com/article/176059/real-reason-war-syria#axzz2eCeSgAzT

Tom Hayden
September 6, 2013

The resolution in favor of American intervention in Syria conceals an agenda for escalation far beyond, as a statement by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chair Robert Menendez described it, a “narrow” and “focused” US response to the chemical weapons attack on August 21. The American public and Congress are being fooled into a broader effort that looks a lot like war and regime change.

Maybe it’s the price the president paid for Senator John McCain’s vote. But McCain’s amendment, which says, “It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement,” suggests escalation will not be far behind air strikes.

The measure authorizes: two or three months of sustained bombing and missile strikes, aimed at decisively damaging Assad’s military bases and infrastructure; increasing the capabilities of the insurgent forces—somehow without strengthening Al Qaeda—and profoundly weakening Assad’s capacity to continue in power. The prohibition of boots on the ground, so important to Congress, does not cover CIA boots on the ground, nor the boots of American advisers and trainers just over the Syrian border.


That is, 'two to three months of sustained bombing and missile strikes.' Misleading? There has been a lot of that going around lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 09:45 AM

203. Colleen Rowley, Anne Wright, Thomas Drake, Ray McGovern...

Truth Tellers, all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #203)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:22 PM

217. do you have an Octafish file on John Brennan?

would love your take on the history of this player in these matters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nashville_brook (Reply #217)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:31 AM

223. Terror Tuesday guy thinks he's the right hand of Death on Earth.

It's nothing personal. It's business.



Did NSA and JSOC Team Up to Game Obama and Monaco on Yemen Terror Alert?

By: Jim White
EmptyWheel, Saturday August 17, 2013 10:46 am

NBC published a fascinating article yesterday that provided new and interesting details on the events surrounding the escalation of drone strikes in Yemen that took place in response to the “intercepted conference call” that wasn’t a conference call. Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito and Jim Miklaszewski report on the personnel and policy changes that were taking place in the Obama administration as these events unfolded and how these changes had led to a decrease in drone strikes:

Obama announced that he had chosen Lisa Monaco to replace Brennan as his top counterterror official on January 25, and she officially assumed the role of Homeland Security Advisor on March 8. The U.S. launched four strikes on Yemen between January 19 and January 23, just before Obama’s announcement about Monaco, but didn’t launch another until April 17.

“With Brennan going over to CIA and Monaco replacing him, it took time,” said a senior counterterrorism official. “This was a while coming. JSOC (the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command) was pushing for more strikes and more operations but the White House slowed everything down.”


Those three strikes in mid-April were followed by another lull in strikes until mid-May, when there were two strikes just before Obama’s drone policy speech:

In tandem with the drone speech, the President issued new internal guidance to officials that tightened controls on what targets could be hit and who could make the decision to launch a drone.

What followed, sources said, was more frustration from Defense Department officials, and a third, seven-week-long interruption in drone strikes that led to a backlog of identified militant targets in Yemen.


But the “targeting” done by JSOC in Yemen isn’t of the same quality as the information prepared for targeting by the CIA for strikes in Pakistan, according to the NBC report:

In May, around the time of Obama’s speech, senior military officials prepared “targeting packages” for Monaco, with a roster of suspected militants in Yemen that they wanted to eliminate. The “targeting packages” contain background information on the identified targets. The CIA’s packages for Pakistan are often very detailed, while the Defense Department’s research on Yemeni targets was sometimes less detailed.

In fact, the JSOC apparently even admitted that some of these recent targeting packages pertained to lower level targets, but in an apparent use of pre-cogs, they claimed these were going to be important al Qaeda figures in the future and the administration had to deal with the question of “pain now, or pain later” in their recommendation to take out these lower level operatives.


CONTINUED...

http://www.emptywheel.net/tag/john-brennan/



Brennan islikethis with Bandar Bush. Wayne Masden suspects him of being the henchman behind some heinous crimes, including the murder of a 9-11 author and his children and Michael Hastings, the reporter in the runaway Mercedes. I don't know, but i do know the business of war involves dollar amounts so big they have no compunction taking, or if they're gentlemen, in hiring someone to take innocent human life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Octafish (Reply #223)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 05:32 PM

237. i forgot that Brennan was Hastings' next story -- did you see this?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/fbi-docs-reveal-continued-investigation-624936


FBI has released declassified documents that reveal a continued investigation into what it calls "controversial reporting" by the Rolling Stone contributor (Michael Hastings).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 11:23 AM

210. If the rebels did it

Why isn't Assad making the claim more loudly and directly to the American public? Why isn't he demanding hundreds of weapons inspectors and steering them to proof of rebel culpability? Assad could also promise that it would never happen again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #210)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:16 PM

214. Qaddafi did all those things right before he was toppled. keyword: humanitarian vulcans

There's a history of that not working for our disfavored dictators with strategic oil interests.


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/inside-obamas-war-room-20111013

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 11:57 AM

211. Obama to U.S. military and intelligence officials, and to us, SO WHAT?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:22 PM

216. what officials? everybody on that list has (ret) or (former) after their name.

I don't avocate US military intervention here but I have not seen a credible source that thinks anyone other than Syrian government forces are responsible for that attack, whether they support US involvement or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:32 PM

218. While I opposed bombing Syria, I can't see how these people's opinion is any different than

my own. They are no longer privy to classified information and some on the list are out and out nut cases. I believe the the president has much better, more reliable, up-to-date information than this group.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Sun Sep 8, 2013, 12:56 PM

220. If our (USA) motive is to prevent death by poison gas,

then why not airlift massive supply of gas masks to Syria instead of bombs?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:34 AM

224. FORMER U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #224)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 08:54 AM

228. Exactly...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Catherina (Original post)

Tue Sep 10, 2013, 01:47 PM

235. if assad didn't do it, then he should have no problem giving up the chemical weapons he

concedes he has. end of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread