Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

America’s Non-representative War Government

By Sheldon Richman | Free Association | November 3, 2015

“The success of government…,” the late historian Edmund Morgan wrote, “requires the acceptance of fictions, requires the willing suspension of disbelief, requires us to believe that the emperor is clothed even though we can see that he is not.”

Representation is chief among those fictions.

“Just as the exaltation of the king could be a means of controlling him,” Morgan continued, “so the exaltation of the people can be a means of controlling them…. If the representative consented, his constituents had to make believe that they had done so.”

Questioning the authenticity of representative government may seem beyond the pale in America. But occasionally the veil slips, and we glimpse reality. If we really live under a representative government, how can a president take the country to war without even a show vote in Congress, much less a referendum? (The proposed Ludlow Amendment to the Constitution would have required a referendum on war.)

Barack Obama has announced he is sending special operations forces into Syria to help those fighting both the government of Bashar al-Assad and the Islamic State, just as last year he ordered airstrikes in Syria. He previously said he would not send ground forces, but you can forget about that now. After a Delta Force soldier was killed there while on a raid last month, Secretary of War Ash Carter acknowledged that Americans will be at risk. Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said, “The norm is not going out in raids. I’m obviously not going to rule anything out.”

Note well: the U.S. Congress has not declared war on Syria (nor should it), so Obama’s moves are unconstitutional and illegal. Last year Obama asked Congress for an “authorization for the use of military force” (AUMF) — it went nowhere and is going nowhere — while insisting he did not need it. The administration (echoing George W. Bush) says any president has the inherent power under the Constitution to do what he’s doing in Syria. The administration first suggested the AUMFs of 2001 and 2002 were sufficient, but that claim was demolished. The 2001 AUMF said Bush could attack al-Qaeda and its associates. Neither Assad nor the Islamic State qualifies: al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, al-Nusra Front, is also trying to overthrow Assad, and the Islamic State emerged from a split in al-Qaeda. The 2002 AUMF was aimed at Iraqi president Saddam Hussein — it could hardly apply to Syria.

More fundamentally, an AUMF is not a declaration of war; it’s a blank-check, unconstitutional delegation of power from Congress to a president. Consider the 2002 AUMF. As I wrote back then:

The resolution would authorize Mr. Bush to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to 1) defend the national security interests of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and 2) to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” The key phrase is “as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.” It would be consistent with the resolution for Mr. Bush to decide that it was neither necessary nor appropriate to use force against Iraq at all.

In other words, the Congress is not declaring that a state of war exists between Iraq and the United States. On the contrary, the President will decide when and if a state of war exists. The resolution requires only that he “certify” that diplomatic efforts have failed before he uses force. Indeed, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt confirmed that Congress will not be declaring war when he said, “we should deal with it [the Iraqi problem] diplomatically if we can, militarily if we must. And I think this resolution does that.”

Orwellian war-denial is nothing new for the Obama administration. Obama refused to call the 2011 regime-changing air campaign in Libya a war; thus he dismissed the War Powers Resolution as irrelevant. (That 1973 measure was Congress’s feeble attempt to rein in de facto presidential power to make war and rectify the constitutional usurpation that began with Harry Truman’s “police action” in Korea in 1950.)

Going to war is the most consequential step a government can take. If the people have nothing to say about war ex ante, the government can hardly be described as representative.

November 4, 2015 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

War in Syria? Where Is Speaker Ryan?

By Pat Buchanan • Unz Review • November 3, 2015

“The United States is being sucked into a new Middle East war,” says The New York Times. And the Times has it exactly right.

Despite repeated pledges not to put “boots on the ground” in Syria, President Obama is inserting 50 U.S. special ops troops into that country, with more to follow.

U.S. A-10 “warthog” attack planes have been moved into Incirlik Air Base in Turkey, close to Syria.

Hillary Clinton, who has called for arming Syrian rebels to bring down Bashar Assad, is urging Obama to establish a no-fly zone inside Syria.

Citing Clinton and Gen. David Petraeus, John McCain is calling for a no-fly zone and a safe zone in Syria, to be policed by U.S. air power.

“How many men, women and children,” McCain asks, “are we willing to watch being slaughtered by the Russians and Bashar al-Assad?”

Yet, if we put U.S. forces onto sovereign Syrian territory, against the will and resistance of that government, that is an act of war.

Would we tolerate Mexican troops in Texas to protect their citizens inside our country? Would we, in the Cold War, have tolerated Russians in Cuba telling us they were establishing a no-fly zone for all U.S. warplanes over the Florida Strait and Florida Keys?

Obama has begun an escalation into Syria’s civil war, and not only against ISIS and the al-Nusra Front, but against Syria’s armed forces.

Mission creep has begun. The tripwire is being put down. Yet, who authorized Obama to take us into this war? The Russians and Iranians are in Syria at the invitation of the government. But Obama has no authorization from Congress to put combat troops into Syria.

Neither the al-Nusra Front nor ISIS has an air force. Against whom, then, is this Clinton-McCain no fly-zone directed, if not Syrian and Russian warplanes and helicopters?

Is America really prepared to order the shooting down of Russian warplanes and the killing of Russian pilots operating inside Syria with the approval of the Syrian government?

In deepening America’s involvement and risking a clash with Syrian, Russian and Iranian forces, Obama is contemptuously ignoring a Congress that has never authorized the use of military force against the Damascus regime.

Congress’ meek acquiescence in being stripped of its war powers is astonishing. Weren’t these the Republicans who were going to Washington to “stand up to Obama”?

Coming after Congress voted for “fast track,” i.e., to surrender its constitutional right to amend trade treaties, the capitulations of 2015 rank as milestones in the long decline into irrelevance of the U.S. Congress. Yet in the Constitution, Congress is still the first branch of the U.S. government.

Has anyone thought through to where this U.S. intervention can lead?

This weekend, the Justice and Development Party, or AKP, of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan regained full control of the parliament in a “khaki election” it called after renewing its war on the Kurdish PKK in southeastern Turkey and northern Iraq.

Erdogan regards the PKK as a terror group. As do we. But Erdogan also considers Syria’s Kurdish fighters, the YPG, to be terrorists. And Ankara has warned that if the YPG occupies more territory along the Syrian-Turkish border, west of the Euphrates, Turkey will attack.

Why should this concern us?

Not only do we not regard the YPG as terrorists, they are the fighting allies we assisted in the recapture of Kobani. And the U.S. hopes Syria’s Kurds will serve as the spear point of the campaign to retake Raqqa, the ISIS capital in Syria, which is only a few dozen miles south of YPG lines.

Should the YPG help to defeat ISIS and become the dominant power in northern Syria, the more dangerous they will appear to Erdogan, and the more problems that will create between the Turkish president and his NATO ally, the United States.

Not only does a Congressional debate on an authorization to use military force appear constitutionally mandated before we intervene in Syria, but the debate itself on an AUMF might induce a measure of caution before we plunge into yet another Middle East quagmire.

When Saddam fell, we got civil war, ISIS in Anbar, and a fractured and failed state with hundreds dying every week.

And, as of today, no one knows with certitude who rises if Assad falls.

The leading candidates are Jabhat al-Nusra, the front for an al-Qaida that brought down the twin towers[sic], and the butchers of ISIS, who captured another town on the Damascus road this weekend.

Monday, The Wall Street Journal wrote that Erdogan’s regrettable victory is “a reminder of what happens when America’s refusal to act to stop chaos in places like Syria frightens allies into making unpalatable choices.”

Now there’s an argument for America’s plunging into Syria: Send our troops to fight and die in multisided civil war that has cost 250,000 lives, so Turks will feel reassured enough they won’t vote for “strongmen” like Erdogan.

America needs an America First movement.

November 4, 2015 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

The Syrian Democratic Forces: Just an Invention by Washington to Save Face?

Sputnik – 03.11.2015

As America’s previous strategies for dealing with the Syrian crisis fell into disarray, the Pentagon scrambled to gather a ragtag band of militia groups under the banner of the Syrian Democratic Forces. But the new alliance is barely holding together, and may in fact have been dreamed up as an excuse to continue pumping weapons into the region.

Mere days after the Obama administration announced it was ending its controversial plan to train and equip so-called “moderate” Syrian rebels, a new player arrived on the scene.

“The sensitive state our country Syria is going through and rapid developments on the military and political front… require that there be a united national military force for all Syrians, joining Kurds, Arabs, Syriacs and other groups,” read a statement released by the newly formed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) last month.

The alliance consists of the Kurdish YPG militia, an Assyrian Christian group, and a number of various Arab groups collectively known as the Syrian Arab Coalition.

And according to a senior US military official speaking to the New York Times, the Syrian Arab Coalition was “an American invention.”

Washington’s new Syria strategy involves supporting this nebulous ground alliance in a fight against the self-proclaimed Islamic State terrorist group – in addition to sending between 30 and 50 US Special Forces as “advisers.”

But according to the government officials, the Syrian Arab Coalition consists of only 5,000 fighters. These are spread across various groups without any real central leadership, and approximately 20% of those forces said they had no interest in staging an offensive against IS.

If the SDF is to display any effectiveness, it will be from the 40,000-strong Kurdish militia – a fact which doesn’t exactly sit well with America’s Turkish allies. But by creating the Syrian Arab Coalition, the United States can indirectly arm the Kurds while maintaining plausible deniability.

“The YPG is a very effective fighting force, and it can do a lot. But these Arab groups are weak and just a fig leaf for the YPG,” Barak Barfi, of the New America Foundation, told the Times.

“There is no deep-rooted alliance between these groups; this is a shifting tactical alliance.”

The Syrian Arab Coalition is all but nonexistent, but even the broader SDF is in tatters. Despite the Pentagon’s dumping of 50 tons of ammunition into Syria last month, the alliance is in desperate need of heavy weapons, radios, infrastructure, leadership, and, yes, ammunition.

Visiting the frontlines in Syria, Ben Hubbard of the New York Times reported on just how ill-equipped the alliance is. Fighters wear old, worn-out boots and ragged fatigues. Security checkpoints are manned by teenagers armed with aging rifles. The only unifying factor at this time appears to be a yellow flag meant to represent the SDF, though it has no command posts to fly over.

“This is the state of our fighters: trying to fight ISIS with simple means,” one commander said, using an alternative acronym for the Islamic State.

The SDF is also in dire need of leadership. While the group is meant to be led by a six-person military council, that council currently consists of a single individual, who largely serves as little more than a spokesman.

Creating an illusory group to justify military actions in Syria isn’t exactly a new strategy for the Obama administration. When the US-led coalition first began airstrikes in Syria, Pentagon officials said they were targeting an al-Qaeda affiliate known as Khorasan.

“There are serious questions about whether the Khorasan Group even exists in any meaningful way or identifiable manner,” Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain wrote for the Intercept.

“What happened here is all-too-familiar. The Obama administration needed propagandistic and legal rationale for bombing yet another predominantly Muslim country.”

With the SDF, the administration can similarly deny arming Kurdish militias, and pretend it has an actual strategy in the region.

November 3, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | , , , | Leave a comment

Syria peace talks a small step, but leans forward

By M K Bhadrakumar | Indian Punchline | November 2, 2015

When diplomats from seventeen countries sit down together for the first time in a particular format and after “a frank and constructive discussion” for over seven hours and manage to find common ground to issue a joint statement spelling out in nine points their “mutual understanding”, although “substantial differences remain”, regarding an acute regional conflict, that is commendable effort – especially, when it is about “the grave situation in Syria and how to bring about an end to the violence as soon as possible”.

Indeed, the joint statement issued in Vienna in the evening of Friday, October 30 is notable for both bringing together a common ground between the participants as well as for giving a sense of direction and a pledge that the ministers who attended the talks will reconvene within two weeks “to continue these discussions” and in the meanwhile “working to narrow remaining areas of disagreement, and build on areas of agreement”.

The salience of the joint statement lies in its neatly sidestepping the contentious issue of the future of President Bashar Al-Assad and instead focus on the peace process in search of a settlement and the fight against terrorism. The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon couldn’t have put it better when he said afterward, “The future of Syria or the future of all these peace talks and Syrian-led negotiations should not be held up by an issue of a future of one man. Basically, I believe it is up to Syrian people, who have to decide the future of President Assad.”

The highlights of the joint statement are: a) the unity, independence, territorial integrity and secular character of Syria are “fundamental”; b) the rights of all Syrians must be protected; c) the peace process will be under the UN auspices; d) the political process will comprise the representatives of the Syrian government and the opposition; e) it will be Syrian-led and Syrian-owned, and the “Syrian people will decide the future of Syria”; f) the political process will lead to “credible, inclusive, non-sectarian governance”, followed by a new constitution and elections under UN supervision in which “all Syrians, including the diaspora” will be eligible to participate”. In the meanwhile, modalities of a ceasefire will be explored, which will, however, exclude the Islamic State and other extremist groups. A follow-up meeting is expected next week.

It does not need much ingenuity to figure out that the stance of Russia and Iran has been vindicated to a very great extent. How could this have happened? The short answer is that the United States has begun distancing itself from the position of its so-called ‘allies’ in Syria – Saudi Arabia, in particular. The body language at the Vienna talks suggests an overarching US-Russia amity. The US Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov sat side by side and frequently consulted each other.  The friendly atmosphere was evident also during their joint press conference after the talks in Vienna.

The unspoken question is how in an “inclusive” political process where the people of the country are to be the final decision-makers regarding the future of their country — and where even the Syrian diaspora can participate — how on earth one single individual by name Assad can be made the solitary exception because Saudi Arabia doesn’t like his face (for whatever reason)? The Saudi insistence that Assad should be removed through a political settlement or by force has become untenable. What Saudi Arabia seeks is a political order in Syria that is imposed top-down, whereas, the joint statement takes the contrarian position that it is the Syrian people who will choose their next leadership – not any foreign power.

During the Kerry-Lavrov press conference, it transpired that Moscow has proposed more cooperation with Washington for a coordinated fight against the Islamic State. Kerry said he would seek President Barack Obama’s approval for the Russian proposal. Meanwhile, it is to be noted that Russia has only perfunctorily disagreed with President Barack Obama’s decision to deploy around four dozen military advisers to Syria. (Iran’s reaction, too, is notably low-key.) Of course, Obama’s detractors in the US have gone to town to vilify him by claiming he has gone back on his word that he will not put ‘boots on the ground’ in Syria. But it stands to reason that this is not a ‘mission creep’, as made out to be by Obama’s critics.

Of course, there is a dichotomy in the Obama administration’s overall approach on Syria following the Russian military intervention. Clearly, Obama is figuring out his way forward and is unsure of the downstream repercussions of the Russian military operations. The tantalizing question is whether the US isn’t, after all, edging closer to the original Russian proposal for a concerted effort to fight the IS? Indeed, if a nation-wide ceasefire takes hold in Syria between the government and the ‘moderate’ opposition concurrent with the political process (which is what has been envisaged in the joint statement), it opens the door to a Russian-American coordinated military effort against the IS. Obama cannot be oblivious of that. The text of the joint statement is here.

November 3, 2015 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Cameron denies scrapping vote on Syria airstrikes after warning from MPs

RT | November 3, 2015

Prime Minister David Cameron has reportedly scrapped plans to call a House of Commons vote on approving airstrikes against Islamic State (formerly ISIS/ISIL) in Syria after failing to win over enough Labour MPs to counterbalance rebellious Tories.

Whitehall sources told The Guardian and The Times that Downing Street had unofficially decided not to extend Royal Air Force (RAF) bombing campaigns from Iraq to Syria over fears Cameron would be humiliated by a second defeat on the issue.

MPs previously voted down launching airstrikes against Syria, specifically targeting forces loyal to President Bashar Assad, in 2013.

Cameron had insisted he would only call a vote when he had achieved a clear, cross-party consensus.

However, the estimated number of Labour MPs expected to vote in favor of airstrikes – between 20 and 30 – would not counteract the number of Tories planning to rebel.

One Downing Street source denied the claims, saying Cameron will still call a vote when a consensus is reached.

“The prime minister’s position hasn’t changed,” the source said.

“He’s consistently said that we would only go back to the House [of Commons] on this issue if there was clear consensus and that remains the case.”

“Meanwhile, the government continues to work to bring the conflict to an end in Syria and we are working closely with our allies to inject greater momentum into efforts to find a political solution, which we’ve always said will be the way to bring this war to an end and give Syria hope for the future.”

In a further blow to Cameron’s campaign to extend British bombing to Syria, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee released a report saying they are “not yet persuaded” by the case for Syrian airstrikes.

The report expresses concerns that Royal Air Force airstrikes would only have a “marginal effect” and could prove a “distraction” from a diplomatic solution.

MPs agreed that the humanitarian catastrophe means there is a “powerful sense that something must be done.”

But they added that military action should not be used unless there is a “coherent international strategy.”

“We believe that there should be no extension of British military action into Syria unless there is a coherent international strategy that has a realistic chance of defeating ISIL and of ending the civil war in Syria.

“In the absence of such a strategy, taking action to meet the desire to do something is still incoherent,” they added.

However, one former Labour minister threatened to quit the party after suggestions Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership team would consult the Stop the War coalition over a government proposal to begin military action.

Tom Harris MP, a former transport minister, posted on Facebook it would be “goodbye” from him if the anti-war group was consulted.

The British government has already authorized drone strikes against ISIS targets in Syria without the backing of parliament. In September, it was revealed that two British nationals fighting for extremist organizations had been killed by RAF drones.

US Secretary of State John Kerry will visit London this week to discuss international relations, including the situation in Syria. The US is already carrying out airstrikes in the country.

“While in London, [Kerry] will meet with British Foreign Secretary [Philip] Hammond to discuss a range of bilateral and global issues, including Syria,” a spokesperson for Kerry said.

November 3, 2015 Posted by | Militarism, War Crimes | , , | Leave a comment

Syria hospitals Russia accused of bombing don’t exist – Defense Min

November 3, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media, Warmongering, Video | , | Leave a comment

Five of 6 Syrian Hospitals Allegedly Hit by Russian Airstrikes Don’t Exist

Sputnik – 02.11.2015

The Russian Defense Ministry has denied an existence of five out of six Syrian hospitals allegedly hit by Russian airstrikes, said that the claims of Western media unfounded.

Russia’s Defense Ministry denied the existence of five out of six Syrian hospitals allegedly hit by Russian airstrikes.

“I would like to remind you that a week ago several leading Western media outlets citing the US-based Syrian American Medical Society accused us of allegedly bombing hospitals in al-Ees, al-Hader, Khan Tuman, Sarmin, Latamna and al-Zirba,” ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Igor Konashenkov told reporters.

The spokesman added, that “all these reports were made without any proof.”

“We investigated this information. It turned out, in fact, that there is a hospital only in the settlement of Sarmin. There are no hospitals in al-Ees, al-Hader, Khan Tuman, Latamna and al-Zirba, and, consequently, there are no healthcare workers,” he added.

The Russian Defense Ministry on Monday provided aerial photos of the hospital in Sarmin, which was allegedly destroyed by the Russian airstrikes, as some Western media claims. But the aerial photo shows, that the building is not destroyed.

Russia has been conducting precision airstrikes against ISIL positions in Syria at the request of President Bashar Assad since September 30.

RT Update – November 3

November 2, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Mainstream Media | , , | Leave a comment

Kerry’s Bleeding Heart – Give Us a Break!

By Finian Cunningham – Sputnik – 02.11.2015

America’s top diplomat John Kerry appears to have developed a bleeding heart of emotional concern for Syria. So too have his British and French counterparts.

After nearly five years of relentless killing, destruction and suffering in Syria, the Western leaders are saying it’s now time for peace – and hence the talks in Vienna, convened primarily at the behest of Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy last week.

“It’s time to stop the bleeding and to start the building,” said the US Secretary of State in the Austrian capital. Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov featured prominently at the summit, which was also attended by arch-rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran. Delegates are to meet in the next two weeks to pursue, allegedly, a political resolution of the Syrian conflict.

Anyone with an informed understanding of the war in Syria will not buy Kerry’s “bleeding heart” for peace. Nor that of Washington’s lackeys, including Britain, France, Turkey, or the Gulf Arab monarchies Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

These countries have been responsible for instigating and fuelling a covert war for regime change in Syria. An entirely criminal enterprise that has been instrumented by funding, arming and training an array of foreign mercenary armies comprising some of the most blood-thirsty terror groups on the planet. The notion peddled by the Western news media of “moderate rebels” is an execrable fiction that belies the truth of how Washington and its allies have attempted to destroy Syria and terrorise the population into submitting to their objective of overthrowing the elected government of President Bashar al-Assad.

“World powers in quest for peace,” intones the BBC, with the typical whitewashing service of the incredulous Western media.

The Western powers have drenched Syria in blood since March 2011. The regime-change conspiracy has been well documented. Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas disclosed in 2013 that he was approached by British officials back in 2009 – two years before the conflict erupted – with the proposition of a secret plot to overthrow Assad. To his credit Dumas refused, knowing that it was a criminal interference in a sovereign state.

British-based academic Sharmine Narwani, reporting from Syria, has compiled how the initial protests were infiltrated by armed agents who shot down protesters and Syrian state forces – thus sparking what the Western media mendaciously refer to as a “civil war” and “pro-democracy uprising”. There was no such thing. It was a US-led subversion from the outset, the kind of black ops that the Western imperialist powers specialise in. A relevant recent example is the CIA-sponsored coup in Ukraine which was consummated by the notorious sniper massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014.

American, British, French and Turk special forces have been embedded in Syria from the get-go. Saudi Arabia and Qatar have funnelled billions of dollars worth of weapons into the country to fuel the “jihadists”. The CIA has delivered anti-tank TOW missiles, as well as the finest Toyota jeeps to transport the mercenary armies, who openly wave Al Qaeda and Islamic State flags. We could go on. The ratlines have been well covered elsewhere.

So, are we to seriously believe that at this late hour, Washington and its minions are suddenly overcome with humanitarian concern for Syria? Only perhaps if you rely on the New York Times, CNN, BBC, the Guardian and so on for “news” – which translated from Orwellian speak into plain language means “shameless propaganda”.

This, by the way, is why the US and its lackeys are gunning for Russian media outlets. Because the Russian media are actually providing a proper journalistic information service, exposing the criminal fraudulence and terror-sponsorship of Western governments in the Syria mayhem.

Anyway, back to the bleeding hearts of Kerry, Hammond and Fabius. What is really jerking this triumvirate of rogues into convening “peace talks” is this: Russia’s military intervention in Syria, beginning on September 30, is wiping out the Western-sponsored terror armies. Over 1,600 targets smashed over the past month. Russia is doing what the Western powers claimed that they were doing for the past year (another cynical ruse laundered by the Western media.)

This is why the Western terror masters are all of a sudden running to Vienna for “negotiations”. Their covert war in Syria is being eviscerated on the ground by the combined forces of Russia, the Syrian national army and Iranian military advisors. The West’s billion-dollar terror assets are being annihilated.

Kerry wants to stop the bleeding alright – the bleeding of regime-change mercenaries that the West and its Turk and Arab clients have invested in over the past five years.

In desperation, the Western powers are now turning to the political lever, as opposed to their soon-to-be defunct covert military lever.

The “political process” that the West has belatedly adopted is being pursued now to achieve their objective of regime change in Syria by other means, because the military means are being pulverised by Vladimir Putin’s bold intervention.

Washington and its cronies are pushing for a ceasefire, elections and a “political transition”. Saudi Arabia and Qatar advocating elections?

Come off it. These despots behead and crucify anyone calling for elections in their own feudalistic Western-backed fiefdoms.

This weekend, John Kerry’s subordinate at the US State Department, Tony Blinken, announced, hot on the heels, of the Vienna summit that Washington is to ply $100 million into Syria to “support the moderate opposition.”

According to Voice of America, Blinken said the money “would be given to help the Syrian opposition boost local governments and civil societies… for keeping schools open, restoring access to clean water and electricity, and supporting an independent media.”

This hoary formula is straight out of the US State Department’s manual for inciting “colour revolutions” as we saw in Ukraine, Georgia and several other countries.

The despicable difference in Syria is that the “civil society” and infrastructure supposedly being repaired with $100 million has been destroyed in the first place by Washington’s nefarious regime-change war. The apparent generous largesse of the US government in Syria is not just about infiltrating the country politically, it is also a disgusting bribe dangled before a war-torn, devastated nation.

Washington and its state-sponsoring terrorist cronies are reaching for the political lever not out of concern to broker peace, but out of necessity to engineer regime change through political subversion because Russia has nullified their covert violent methods.

The Western powers are endeavouring to co-opt Russia and Iran to contrive a political framework aimed at achieving their core goal – ousting President Assad.

Russia and Iran are not buying this ruse, insisting that the political future of Syria is the sovereign prerogative of the Syrian people.

There is no need for a “new political process”. The principle of sovereignty in Syria was already established in the Geneva Communiqué three years ago.

What Russia and Iran should do is defeat the Washington-led axis politically, as they are doing militarily. Peace in Syria will be achieved when Washington, principally, desists from its criminal scheming and finally abides by international law.

As for John Kerry’s “bleeding heart”. The blood-soaked hands of Washington, Britain, France, and the other criminal states, are the far more real and pertinent issue.

November 2, 2015 Posted by | Deception | , , , | Leave a comment

Save The Apologies, Just Stop Promoting War!

By Ron Paul | November 1, 2015

Usually when politicians apologize it’s because they have been caught doing something wrong, or they are about to be caught. Such was likely the case with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who recently offered an “apology” for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Blair faces the release of a potentially damning report on his government’s conduct in the run-up to the 2003 US/UK invasion of Iraq.

Similarly, a batch of emails released from the private server of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton show Blair pledging support for US military action against Iraq a full year before the decision to attack had supposedly been made. While Prime Minister Blair was assuring his constituents that he was dedicated to diplomacy in the Iraq crisis, he was communicating through back channels that he was ready for war whenever Bush decided on it.

A careful observer of public opinion, Blair took the surprising step of “apologizing” for the Iraq war during an interview on CNN last month.

However, there are two other characteristics of politicians’ apologies: they rarely take personal blame for a misdeed and rarely do they atone for those misdeeds.

Thus Tony Blair did not apologize for his role in pushing the disastrous Iraq war. He did not apologize for having, as former head UN Iraq inspector Hans Blix claimed, “misrepresented intelligence on weapons of mass destruction to gain approval for the Iraq War.”

No, Tony Blair “apologized” for “the fact that the intelligence we received was wrong,” on Iraq. He apologized for “mistakes in planning” for post-Saddam Iraq. He boldly refused to apologize for removing Saddam from power.

In other words, he apologized that the intelligence manipulated by his cronies to look like Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat to the UK turned out to not be the case. For Blair, it was someone else’s fault.

But if we are waiting for any kind of apology from George W. Bush for Iraq we shouldn’t hold our breath. Likewise if we are looking for any kind of apology from President Obama for a similarly disastrous war on false pretext against Libya we shouldn’t bother waiting.

If they ever did apologize, we can be sure that like Blair they would never really confess to their own manipulations nor would they seek to atone for the destruction their manipulations caused.

In fact, far from apologizing for leading the United States into the Libya war based on a false pretext, President Obama is taking US ground troops into Syria on a false pretext. Let’s not forget, this US military action was sold as a limited operation to save a small religious minority stranded on a hilltop in northern Iraq. After one year and thousands of bombing runs against Iraq and Syria, Obama announced last week he is sending US ground troops into Syria after promising no fewer than seven times that he would not do so.

Here’s an idea: instead of apologies and non-apologies from politicians, how about an actual debate on the policies that led to such disasters? Why not discuss why the US keeps being drawn into wars on false pretexts? But that is a discussion we will not have, because both parties are in favor of these wars. They are ready to spend us into Third World status to continue their empire. When we get there, we will never hear their apologies.

November 2, 2015 Posted by | Deception, Militarism, Timeless or most popular, War Crimes | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Daesh oil sales fall thanks to Russian airstrikes in Syria

Press TV – October 31, 2015

Russian airstrikes against Takfiri positions in Syria have resulted in a swift decline in oil sales by the terrorist group, says a French official.

ISIL-controlled oil sales “have declined significantly in recent weeks due to the Russian campaign in Syria,” Russia’s Sputnik quoted a French National Assembly Defense Commission member, Nicolas Dhuicq, as saying on Saturday.

Apart from selling crude oil, the group also “pays people to refine oil in its own places,” he noted, adding, the majority of the terrorist group’s oil revenue is from countries such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar.

“ISIL is funded, probably, by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which are trying to gain back their share of influence in the regions of Iraq and Syria against Iran. Until now, ISIL continues to receive money from these countries, most likely from private donors,” said Dhuicq.

He estimated that the militant group’s budget was around $2 billion, adding further that donors from Turkey also had a hand in re-selling crude oil obtained from Daesh.

“Money may also come from the secret services of the countries and also from Turkey,” he noted.

The Takfiri group currently controls parts of territory in Syria, Iraq and Libya, where it carries out heinous acts of terror such as public decapitations.

Russia launched its first airstrikes against the Takfiri terrorists in Syria on September 30 at the request of the Damascus government. Moscow says its air raids are meant to weaken Daesh and other terrorist groups that are wreaking havoc in Syria.

November 1, 2015 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, War Crimes | , , , , | Leave a comment

‘Calculated to put American troops in danger’: Why US wants escalation in Syria

RT | October 31, 2015

Sending some 50 US advisers to Syria illegally to train the so-called ‘moderate rebels’ looks like a calculated move. If, or when, someone gets hurt, the US will have a pretext for boots on the ground, believes retired US Air Force Lieutenant Col Karen Kwiatkowski.

RT:  Does this deployment mean Americans will be putting themselves in the direct line of fire in Syria?

Karen Kwiatkowski: I think there is a danger of that happening and I think that is part of why they are going there. I think they are looking for an excuse to up the ante, to send more troops and to have a crisis of some sort. Clearly the president has been lying, and so has Ash Carter, about what their real intentions are. So, in my opinion, I think this is provocative and I think it is calculated to put our troops in danger.

RT:  How is that not a combat operation?

KK: Well, special forces are combat. And what the president said [is] they are going to be opportunistic. When you are training and advising, you do not use the word opportunistic. Training and advising is a more steady state situation. So they are using the word opportunistic, they are expecting to get involved in combat operations, and they have sent combat troops to do that. I do not care how they have used the term for non-combat. This is combat.

RT:  They are going there to support the so-called moderate rebels. We know it hasn’t been terribly successful. Why should this make a huge difference?

KK: In terms of helping the moderate rebels – if there are any that we can identify – it is not going to make any difference in that regard. This is about US exercising some power, some limited power that it has, to kind of assert its relevance, particularly in the face of our allies who are asking how we are helping or not helping them.

RT:  Sure, but do you think this is a game changer or, perhaps, this is a question of timing, because Russia has obviously taken on Islamic State?

KK: I don’t think it is a game changer in that regard. It is a gesture to kind of save face in some respects. But there is a real danger, that if our troops, even if it is a limited number, get killed, and if they get killed by, let’s say, Russian fire or something like that, than we have a big problem, that we are not able diplomatically or militarily able to deal with. So it is extremely foolhardy what they are doing. But yes, it is a gesture to show that the US is trying something. But it is a weak gesture and it is a dangerous gesture.

RT:  And you mentioned the Russian airstrikes there and, presumably, Americans are saying we do need to speak with the Russians now to say where we are located so we don’t get into an incident like that?

KK: You would think that. You would think so.

RT:  But you sound like that might not happen?

KK: If you believe what the president and Ash Carter say, they aren’t really seeking out any cooperation with the Russians. So perhaps behind the scenes they are. I would like to think that they care about the lives of our soldiers that they are sending over there and that they would coordinate, but their public rhetoric is that we will not coordinate. That is what I’ve heard unless something has changed. They are not really interested in coordinating with Russia, anything that Russia is doing in Syria. And by the way remember that it is an illegal act to send our troops into Syrian space, air space or ground space, without the permission of the government of Syria, which we do not have. So this is an act of war on top of everything else that makes this extremely stupid.

RT:  Americans clearly don’t see that as a big issue, I mean it has been conducting airstrikes, despite it being against international law. It does not seem to matter in this case, at this stage anyway.

KK: It has not mattered in our policy in the Middle East for a long time. But I have pointed out that if our people killed, if we decide to make some sort of case about that, we are in the wrong totally in this, because we don’t have permission of the Syrian government to put those troops there at all. They are there illegitimately. So when they get killed or injured or harmed we have a problem in a diplomatic sense.

RT:  A public opinion sense too, I mean what was the reaction when the US soldier did die on a special operations mission in Iraq. Was there a big public outcry in America?

KK: No. Two things that I have noticed about this: one is there is no public outcry, not a lot of concern. I haven’t seen a lot of attention given to this death. What surprised me was how much Ashton Carter and President Obama paid homage to this particular individual, called him a hero, and this is what we would like to see – some guy running into a fight and getting slaughtered in an illegitimate combat situation, because I think even in Iraq we still have some concerns there about what we are doing. They celebrated it. They tried to put a positive spin on it. American people aren’t listening. We have a lot of other different things on in general. The American people aren’t interested in what is going on in the Middle East. They don’t want to get involved in it. But they really tried to spin the death of this soldier in a very positive way. And, I’m sure, to see if it can be sold. And, as far as I can tell, it was sold. Americans aren’t interested, but they haven’t really pushed back at the death of this guy. I think we’ve become inert to it.

RT:  Just looking into the future, you foresee a similar thing?

KK: I do. I mean if you go in the middle of a fire storm in an ill-planned situation, then certainly, you can’t say that anything the Pentagon is doing in the Middle East is well planned. They themselves admit this. So, yes, it is going to lead to the death of Americans. And given how they spun the death that happened last week we’ll see more spinning and, you know, more of Russia as a ‘bad guy’ in this situation, as they try to salvage what is left of their Middle East policy in this final year of the Obama administration, in these final months of the Obama administration… I hate to be cynical about this, but it is such a game that they are playing – no good results for our people, no good results for the Syrian people. It is not going to help the exodus of refugees at all. In fact, it will probably make it worse.

READ MORE: US ground ops in Syria ‘illegal’, may lead to ‘unpredictable’ consequences 

November 1, 2015 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite, War Crimes | , , , | Leave a comment

Le Figaro poll: Over 70% want Syria’s Assad to remain in power

RT | October 31, 2015

A recent poll carried out by France’s Le Figaro newspaper has indicated that at least 72 percent of respondents want Syrian President Bashar Assad to remain in power.

The survey, published on Thursday, asked: “Should world powers demand Bashar Assad to leave?” At least 28 percent from 21,314 respondents have voted “Yes” so far, while the majority – 72 percent – have said “No”.

The poll was conducted ahead of the Vienna talks, where 19 global powers gathered to find a solution for a nationwide ceasefire in Syria. The fate of Assad remained the stumbling block during discussions.

The US and its allies including Saudi Arabia repeatedly said the Syrian president, whose term expires in 2021, must resign.

“There is no way President Assad can unite and govern Syria,” US Secretary of State John Kerry said during the meeting, adding, “Syrians deserve a different choice.”

However, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said the Syrian people “should define the future of their country… including Assad’s fate.”

Earlier in October, a member of Moscow’s parliamentary delegation told TASS that Assad had agreed to hold preliminary elections in the country, provided the move has the people’s backing.

Syria has been caught up in a civil war since 2011, when violent protests erupted as part of the so-called Arab spring. During the turmoil, Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIL/ISIS) militants managed to capture large amounts of territory in Syria and Iraq.

On September 30, Moscow launched a military operation targeting IS positions following a formal request from Assad.

READ MORE: Vienna talks: 19 global powers to work to establish nationwide Syria ceasefire

October 31, 2015 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries     Next Entries »