Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials to Obama: “Assad NOT Responsible for Chemical Attack” [View all]Catherina
(35,568 posts)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
[hr]
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 Dempseys 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 ones 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 Congresss 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. Levins 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 Presidents 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 Parliaments failure to endorse military action. If Fiji can be lined up again, that would make a coalition of at least three.
The Fundamentals: Congresss 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:
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 Americas 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.
Obamas 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 thats required to deploy the U.S. military (in combat) is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Panettas response did nothing to relieve Sessionss 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 Panettas 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 Thursdays 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/
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 Dempseys 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 ones 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 Congresss 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. Levins 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 Presidents 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 Parliaments failure to endorse military action. If Fiji can be lined up again, that would make a coalition of at least three.
The Fundamentals: Congresss 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 Americas 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.
Obamas 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 thats required to deploy the U.S. military (in combat) is the Congress and the President and the law and the Constitution.
Panettas response did nothing to relieve Sessionss 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 Panettas 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 Thursdays 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/
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
237 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials to Obama: “Assad NOT Responsible for Chemical Attack” [View all]
Catherina
Sep 2013
OP
Once again you blindly pin what little credibility you have to the administration line
whatchamacallit
Sep 2013
#9
+1. Agreed. They have already come to terms with killing each other. So tricking
GoneFishin
Sep 2013
#140
The CIA Takes Orders from the Same Billionaires which Staffs the State Dept
HumansAndResources
Sep 2013
#191
"but that any potential military attack against it should wait for a U.N. inspectors’ report."
ProSense
Sep 2013
#28
True, but only in that PS sticks to a specific subset of verifiable facts
mindwalker_i
Sep 2013
#143
+10000000 -- plenty of time for blind partisanship during campaign season.
nashville_brook
Sep 2013
#213
Politicians answer to the CIA and the NSA and the 16 other "intelligence Organizaions" that
iemitsu
Sep 2013
#155
Historically, V.I.P.S. has demonstrated great integrity and collectively deserves the utmost respect
proverbialwisdom
Sep 2013
#114
9/10- Gareth Porter: Some in US Intel. Community Reject Obama Admin Case for Syria Attack (part 1)
proverbialwisdom
Sep 2013
#236
It's not unplausible. But I have come to suspect that he leans that way already after
GoneFishin
Sep 2013
#142
It's lucky for PBO that he has decent people trying to stop him from this ill advised war
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#5
Decent people? Larry Johnson did the "whitey tape" bullshit about Michelle Obama.
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#113
I would work with Ron Paul to keep us out of war. I would work with RAND Paul to do the same thing
MNBrewer
Sep 2013
#69
"Without corroboration, it's meaningless"? Where's the corroboration that you were in intelligence?
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#96
I surmise their recent experience is likely better than 30 years more recent than yours.
rug
Sep 2013
#141
and of course they severe all ties with former coworkers and have zero inside connections..
frylock
Sep 2013
#53
Props and Kudo's to you MineralMan, trust me when I say I understand.
Rebellious Republican
Sep 2013
#73
You were a peon. Peons as we all well know have different rules and access than the bosses.
TheKentuckian
Sep 2013
#99
If you didn't care you wouldn't have made the statement and continued to argue it.
TheKentuckian
Sep 2013
#125
Nonsense. I'm willing to beleive that your experience in the intelligence business has no relevance
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#85
How are you in a position to judge what they know vs. what Obama knows? nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#188
Hang the facts, hang reason, hang legality: the RW PNAC agenda must move ahead at all cost
indepat
Sep 2013
#22
This entire article boils down to 3 meager paragraphs containing not one fact, no evidence.
KittyWampus
Sep 2013
#24
Barbara Lee, who was the only member of Congress to Vote against the Afghanistan War Authorization
DemocratSinceBirth
Sep 2013
#35
Or like the Iranians "Gassed Themselves" - or So We Were Told When The USA Was Backing Saddam
HumansAndResources
Sep 2013
#192
And if this is legit, why didn't the signers send their letter to major national media sources?
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#38
Or the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune, the Seattle Times or any number
pnwmom
Sep 2013
#131
and none of that matters to me. what matters is the accuracy of this group in past..
frylock
Sep 2013
#132
Puh-leeze...the WP and the other "papers of record" don't want to vet the letter
Raksha
Sep 2013
#145
But I thought who did it didn't matter. They want their damn war and, by god, they'll it
valerief
Sep 2013
#37
Oh, I think that Assad's forces did it. The evidence for it appears much stronger than this
cali
Sep 2013
#44
What the hell do you mean, " . . . draw the US into a battle against them?"
another_liberal
Sep 2013
#72
Whatever Senator Kerry had access to before the Iraq War started was useless
David Krout
Sep 2013
#75
Kerry also seemed to forget what bringing down the strongman Saddam Hussein
amandabeech
Sep 2013
#147
Did the 12 people who sign this statement have to do with the 'Whitey' tape?
David Krout
Sep 2013
#80
Instead they're persisting. Grayson and Amash not impressed with their bogus intel
Catherina
Sep 2013
#78
Islamist factions among the rebels have already said they have chemical weapons.
another_liberal
Sep 2013
#149
Would all respondents to this OP who believe 9/11 was an inside job please step forward?
Flatulo
Sep 2013
#83
The link say that they are the one who make that statement...but I cannot found a single
Sand Wind
Sep 2013
#107
Your use of a double negative is suspicious. What nation do you represent? nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#184
That sentence doesnt even make sense. Are you having trouble translating? What is
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#187
Oh right, I remember you, you are the one who do not succeed about one of my video...
Sand Wind
Sep 2013
#189
What is your first language. Your sentences dont make any sense. You seem to be
rhett o rick
Sep 2013
#190
Since you don't have any source to back this frauds, I suppose that you don't have Internet ? Nt
Sand Wind
Sep 2013
#230
Whoo-hoo! Now we know what 9/11 Truthers and Larry "Whitey Tape" Johnson have to say!
Bolo Boffin
Sep 2013
#103
Larry Johnson previously claimed he had a tape of Michelle Obama saying "whitey"
msanthrope
Sep 2013
#105
Its a forgery : No, any U.S. Military and Intelligence Officials are saying that to Obama. Nt
Sand Wind
Sep 2013
#110
Interesting that VIPS cites a mirror image of a US-Israeli-Jordanian op reported by DEBKA on 08/17
leveymg
Sep 2013
#133
Nor do I. But, that one was hard to ignore. Is this the .ru site you referenced? Still up.
leveymg
Sep 2013
#162
It's real. Ray McGovern has it up on his blog. Thomas Drake tweeted it out, so did Robert Parry.
Catherina
Sep 2013
#161
"A war the Pentagon doesn’t want" By Robert H. Scales, retired Army major general
Catherina
Sep 2013
#166
If there is a shadow of doubt .. then we've go no business bombing that country.
YOHABLO
Sep 2013
#171
Qaddafi did all those things right before he was toppled. keyword: humanitarian vulcans
nashville_brook
Sep 2013
#214
Obama to U.S. military and intelligence officials, and to us, SO WHAT?
AnotherMcIntosh
Sep 2013
#211
what officials? everybody on that list has (ret) or (former) after their name.
arely staircase
Sep 2013
#216
While I opposed bombing Syria, I can't see how these people's opinion is any different than
OregonBlue
Sep 2013
#218
if assad didn't do it, then he should have no problem giving up the chemical weapons he
ellenfl
Sep 2013
#235