Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
August 31, 2013

Syria: Obama's Climb-down - Congress Vote On All Out War

We were Awaiting Obama's Climb-down. Obama just delivered it. As explained here:
Obama is now in a catch 22. The House Republicans demand answers to detailed questions about the war Obama wants to wage that he will not be able to give. 80% of U.S. citizens want Obama to go to Congress before waging war. But if he calls Congress back from vacations to vote on a war resolution he will risk, like Cameron, utter defeat. If he does not call back Congress and proceeds with a strike he may face impeachment. He can of course stand down on the issue but will then be damaged goods in international affairs and a lame duck at home.
So Obama has chosen the first path, to ask Congress for a vote. He did so with some more heart bleeding nonsensical rhetoric. If Congress rejects the war Obama will not be able to wage it as that would very likely lead to impeachment.

Obama may have done this climb-down with two silent hopes in his mind:

  • he either doesn't want war and hopes that Congress saves him from the stupid red-line trap that he set for himself and that led to the false-flag incident on a Damascus suburb - or
  • he wants war and hopes that AIPAC with its phenomenal lobbying power will bring Congress in line and make it consent to wage another war for the sole benefit of Zionism.

Here is my hope that the people of the United States, even though they mostly despise the current Congress, will do all they can to prevent another U.S. war in the Middle East. Please, starting today, bother your Congressmen and Senators every day over the next ten days and urgently press them to vote "No!" on the upcoming war resolution. Keep in mind that if Congress would vote "Yes!" the war will NOT be limited to few air strikes or cruise missile shots.

If Congress votes for the war, it will - no matter what they will tell you before - become an all out very deadly conflagration over all the Middle East including Iran. The resolution would just be interpreted to mean whatever the president wants it to mean. There would then be lots of U.S. boots on the ground and many more people would die than in the war the U.S. waged on Iraq.

Posted by b on August 31, 2013 at 02:14 PM | Permalink

Comments
next page »

Good call that, b! Hope this development leads to better sense prevailing.

Posted by: FB Ali | Aug 31, 2013 2:25:43 PM | 1

for what it's worth, which ain't much, i sent an email to my ushouserep yesterday asking for no war...but as all my states reps and senators take that aipac cash...

Posted by: bfrakes | Aug 31, 2013 2:29:19 PM | 2

Note that he cannot provide how Syria is threaten the US. Instead he say Syria threat Israel, which in any case is nonsense. What this war should be dubbed is "Operation Empowering Israel".

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 2:30:19 PM | 3

"he wants war and hopes that AIPAC with its phenomenal lobbying power will bring Congress in line and make it consent to wage another war for the sole benefit of Zionism."

The die is cast. Whatever happens the world will never again be the same.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 31, 2013 2:31:03 PM | 4

Just checked AIPACs website. They are not lobbying for war on Syria. They are lobbying for more sanctions on Iran.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 31, 2013 2:36:26 PM | 5

On a related matter

"Mohamed Badie, the leader of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, suffered a heart attack while in jail but his condition has since stabilised, the state-run al-Ahram newspaper said on Saturday.

"The state news agency Mena denied a report by the private al-Nahar website, that the 70-year-old Badie had died.
....
"A medical team was sent to Torah prison on the outskirts of Cairo to assess Badie's condition earlier on Saturday, a security source told al-Ahram.

"The source said it had stabilised and that the heart attack was the result of the "bad psychological state that he is going through".

"Bad psychological state"

Posted by: bevin | Aug 31, 2013 2:38:21 PM | 6

@somebody Just checked AIPACs website. They are not lobbying for war on Syria.

C'mon, you ain't that naive.

Posted by: b | Aug 31, 2013 2:38:35 PM | 7

He couldnt make it more clear that the war is for Israel still we have users here like "somebody" trying to steer us away. Dont feed the troll.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 2:39:44 PM | 8

@7

C'mon, you ain't that naive.Posted by: b | Aug 31, 2013

Where you write "naive" others, less polite mayhap, might write thatt he ain't that "much of a blatant liar"

Sorry to say, b, but "he is"

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 2:45:17 PM | 9

If Obama really wanted this war, he would have started it a long time ago. He seemed relieved (after he stated he would go to congress) His body language was obvious to me. But still, that was a close call. I cant imagine the pressure he was under by the zionist lobby.

Posted by: hilmi hakim | Aug 31, 2013 2:50:42 PM | 10

Huh my congress dude supplied Israel with cash for Iron Dome. Don't think he's going to listen.
http://roskam.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6590&Itemid=100052

b is quite right but Congress will serve him a giant shit sandwich in that it will direct him to either back out completely or go all in doing it in away that makes barry carry the can.

Posted by: heath | Aug 31, 2013 2:55:16 PM | 11

Congress is always pro war. The Syria strike is extremely unpopular pollwise, so Obama is getting the republicans on record as being for attacking Syria to reduce the democrats exposure to taking unpopular policy action.

Posted by: Kevin_B | Aug 31, 2013 3:01:00 PM | 12

The public support for an attack on Syria depends on how the attack is designed. In the latest poll that I saw 50% of the public supports an attack on Syria as long as the attack is limited to cruise missiles from Navy ships. Only 40% oppose such an approach.

http://www.pollingreport.com/syria.htm

The authorization that Congress will get from the administration can be designed to ONLY include authorization for limited military strikes with no boots on the ground allowed. If that is the case, then the cowardly Congress has cover to support it.

Personally, I am totally opposed to any involvement in Syria's affairs. In that I stand on solid grounds with the Founding Fathers' non-interventionist foreign policy.

Posted by: ndahi | Aug 31, 2013 3:10:05 PM | 13

complete speech on youtube, already:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uL-ugOSbAjg

We are the United States of America ... After WW2, we built an international order that...

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 31, 2013 3:11:00 PM | 14

AIPAC is obviously key here. If they do a full court press on Congress it will have to be visible. This would expose to the whole world that Israel is pushing for war on Syria. It is not clear to me that they would want to risk such exposure. As MJ Rosenberg is fond of pointing out: AIPAC is like a night flower, it would wither in the light of day.

They were openly exposed in pushing for war against Iraq a decade ago and they might just want to sit back and let this vote take its course. Congress needs to be heard from the American people -- they do take note of such pressure. Maybe it is time for some strong candidate in SF to announce that Pelosi is going to face a primary challenge next year.

Posted by: ToivoS | Aug 31, 2013 3:11:41 PM | 15

Toivos

Exactly, the israeli lobby work in secret, so it will look like this is solely a US decision to go war, and not in effect, a israeli government agenda (just like US policy on Iran, Palestine, Egypt etcetera).

Does Obama get 1'0000 everytime he mentions Israel in his speeches?

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 3:16:49 PM | 16

anyone pretending that AIPAC constitutes the sole member of "De Israel Lobby" is quite frankly full of BS.

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 3:33:03 PM | 17

@5: They don't need AIPAC. Have a look:

http://www.foreignpolicyi.org/content/foreign-policy-experts-urge-president-obama-respond-assads-chemical-attack

Posted by: g_h | Aug 31, 2013 3:36:18 PM | 18

7) Lets check.

Wikipedia
"Mearsheimer and Walt state that “pro-Israel figures have established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis, and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. These think tanks are all decidedly pro-Israel and include few, if any, critics of US support for the Jewish state.”[49]"

Present websites on Syria

American enterprise institute

It is also true that there are no easy answers to the war in Syria—the opportunities of the last few years are gone. But America’s failure to act has allowed things to get worse, if not actually made them worse. Letting things get still worse is not merely a moral obscenity but a grave strategic miscalculation.And, by intervening fecklessly for the narrow purpose of upholding a “norm” observed only by ourselves, we are very likely to make things worse.
The Syrian war is no longer a “civil war” between Syrian factions. It has become a struggle for regional power—with an Iranian-Shia axis facing off against a more disparate Sunni Gulf states-al Qaeda axis—that is limited mostly by the incompetence of the combatants. It’s a danger that only a realist could fail to see.

Center for Security Policy

The focus at the moment is on what tactical response the President will make to punish Syrian dictator Bashar Assad for his alleged violation of Mr. Obama’s glibly declared “red-line” barring the use of such weapons of mass destruction. There seems to be little serious thought given at the moment to what happens next: What steps Assad and his allies, Iran and Hezbollah, may take against us, our interests and allies; what the repercussions will be of the United States further helping the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda forces who make up the bulk of Assad’s domestic opposition; and the prospects for a far wider war as a result of the answers to both of these questions.

Foreign Policy Research Institute

Suddenly and predictably, President Obama, who has done everything to avoid any military action, even in the earliest months when there was strong feeling within his administration for just that, is now hinting at some sort of military response. U.S. warships equipped with missiles are streaming towards Syrian shores and Britain, France and Turkey have also indicated re-thinking the issue of involvement and partaking in some sort of military action.

For me, the distancing from the rebel cause that has been so obviously apparent among columnists and think tank analysts has become more serious. This is in part due to the actions of a militant Islamist group who sent a suicide bomber into a Damascus mosque to kill Sheikh Muhammed Said al-Buti.

Al-Buti was a leading member of the Syrian ulama (Islamic scholar) and professor of Islamic Studies at Damascus University. He was well known for his Sufi perspective.

From the beginning al-Buti opposed the rebellion revolution precisely because he feared it would generate the sort of terrorism that would in time take his life along with about 40 others in the mosque. The feeling of ambivalence, on my part, towards the rebellion since the murder of al-Buti was reinforced last week when an Islamic council in the rebel head portion of Aleppo outlawed the croissant as anti-Islamic. This is because it was allegedly created by Viennese bakers to celebrate the failure of the first Ottoman siege of Vienna some five or so centuries ago. This is so absurd and frightening.

Again, with the global public opinion shifting away from the rebel cause why did the Syrian regime carry this attack? In the heat and anger of war, which transcends political insight, it is possible that a rogue officer might have ordered the attack.

to lazy to check the others, you get the gist, they are not enthusiastic on rebel support.

They are not neocons b., they live in the region.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 31, 2013 3:47:40 PM | 19

Reuters:

1. White House believes Congress will vote in favor of U.S. strike, senior officials say (Reuters)

Another headline were that Obama will ask G20 for help next week on their meeting. So no strike coming days, and US will obviously not act themselves.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 3:47:47 PM | 20

17) yep, that's the neocons.

Posted by: somebody | Aug 31, 2013 3:51:29 PM | 21

Sorry b. I don't see him carrying out strikes in the case of congressional disapproval, but even if he did I think the hopes for impeachment are a pipe dream.

He may not get it the first time, but my guess is if he fails by some miracle, like the bank bailouts we are in for multiple votes and all kinds of pork-barrel amendments until it goes through.

The Congressional leadership wants this. He wants this. Israel wants this. the Turks and the Saudis want this. The CIA wants this. The defense contractors want this. This will have every big lobby in the country pressing for it and their leaders telling them to go ahead. The people be damned.

It will take a huge revolt to stop this and the Chinese water torture, as someone here so perfectly called it, is working its magic. Drip drip evil tyrant drip drip dead babies drip drip Assad the murderer drip drip. The polls have already swing 10% in ten days. I suspect we'll see another "chemical attack" by Monday.

I sincerely hope you are right, but I don't see it anymore. They've just decided to cross the t's and dot the i's I feel.

The only thing that can stop this is a real political revolt. Calling congress people and get the word out in social media: http://whoismyrepresentative.com/

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 3:51:52 PM | 22

@17 what a rouge's gallery that is:

Paul Bremmer? Paul f'king Bremmer?

How will these War Democrats feel when they wake up in bed with Joe Lieberman, Karl Rove, and Tim Pawlentyafter a night of debauched war mongering?

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 4:02:00 PM | 23

I love how the lying hasbaraboy @18 & @20 is trying to pretend that the mostly jewish, hard-core zionazi neo-cons listed @17 do not constitute a major part of the Israel Lobby

Cute

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 4:11:08 PM | 24

I Think the headline is very wrong, he isnt climbing down, now he not only have the Congress backing him, he tries to reach out to G20 states next week, for an attack.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 4:27:05 PM | 25

Text of Obama's speech on Syria.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 4:37:11 PM | 26

I'm surprised that Obama would attack Israel, Syria's neighbor, this way.

Obama:

Make no mistake -- this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 4:38:38 PM | 27

re hasbaraboy's bullshit @ 18

Hasbaraoy neglectes to mention that the Israel Lobby's cooling off on syria attacks is a result of the announcement that Zio-Nazi-Land will bear the brunt of Syria retaliation, and rightly so given that this is all about Zio-Nazi land

Indeed the citizens of Zio-Nazi Anti-assimilation-land are themselves quite happy to see Syria destroyed, as long as THEY don't get the blame for it, the 2-faced shitbags that they are

Virtually EVERY NATION that had been polled on this issue rejects it entirely. Certainly the citizens of ZUK, FranZe and ZUSA reject it.

But not our Zio-Nazi friends, no sireee

They're chomping at the bit to see some Syrian blood, but just so long as they don't have to dirty their smelly hands spilling it

Polls: Israelis want US, Europe to attack Syria, but against IDF intervention

By GIL HOFFMAN
08/30/2013 14:48
Tweet
Two-thirds of respondents to Gal Hadash poll concerned American attack on Syria would lead to Israeli involvement in war.

The US and European countries should attack Syria, but Israel should not be involved in the assault, two polls in weekend Hebrew newspapers found.

Polls in the US and United Kingdom have found overwhelming opposition to their countries attacking Syria,

Buta Gal Hadash poll published in Israel Hayom found that 66.6 percent of [Zio-Nazi] respondents would be in favor of American and European military intervention in Syria.

Only 17% [of zio-nazis] opposed a US/EU strike and 16.4% [of zio-Nazis]did not know.

When asked whether they thought such an attack would take place, 72.8% said yes, 15.8% no, and 11.4% did not know.

Asked whether they were concerned that American intervention in Syria would lead to Israeli intervention in the war, 66.8% said yes, 28.7 said no and 4.5% did not know. Regarding what Israeli intervention there would be, 57.4% said limited IDF activity, 14.1% said Syria would attack Israel but the IDF would not respond, 12.9% said there would be all out Middle East war, and 15.6% did not know.

A separate Ma’agar Mohot poll published in Friday’s Ma’ariv found that Israelis overwhelmingly oppose an Israeli strike on Syria. If America does not intervene in Israel’s northeastern neighbor, 77% of respondents who expressed an opinion said Israel should not get involved militarily, 11% said the IDF should, and 12% said they did not know and other answers.

When divided among how people voted in the January general election, 79% of Likud voters opposed Israeli military intervention in Syria, while 96% of Labor and Meretz voters were opposed.

The Ma'agar Mohot poll of 519 respondents had a 4.5 percentage point margin of error. The Gal Hadah poll was taken Wednesday among 500 adult Jewish Israelis and had a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

zio-Nazis care about nothing but themselves.

THAT is why they are Zio-Nazis

Clearly anyone maintaining that the Zio-Nazis don't want this is a blatant liar

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 4:42:36 PM | 28

Please show me (and somebody) where AIPAC is lobbying for a US attack on Syria.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 4:47:15 PM | 29

Please show us where AIPAC is lobbying for the US to attack Syria.
http://www.aipac.org/

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 4:51:46 PM | 30

hmmm

So typical. Goyim must do the work as usual.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 4:54:24 PM | 31

Don Bacon

Here you go:
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/08/syria-obamas-climb-down.html#c6a00d8341c640e53ef019aff1d2177970c

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 4:55:31 PM | 32

Generally AIPAC resolutions garner close to unanimous support in Congress.
If the vote is even close, if there is even a proper public debate, the Zionists lose. And thereafter everything that goes wrong will be their fault. This puts the warmongers in a very embarrassing position.

Even worse for them, the case for war has already been outlined and it is weak. Very weak. In the coming days the propaganda offensive is likely to intensify. But that is a game both sides can play. The less the public thought about Syria, the less they knew about Al Nusra, the cannibals, the Special Forces supplied bombs, the Benghazi weapons connection, the better it was for warmongers.

Anything approaching a public discussion is going to reveal all sorts of connections that Prince Bandar and his friends go to great lengths to hide.

The truth is that the anti-syria forces have shot their bolts. And last week's gas attack was the biggest bolt that they had to shoot.

From the beginning this operation has borne the fingerprints of men who own slaves and consume concubines, men with no real knowledge of how public opinion works and no interest in courting it.

I may be wrong, I often am, but this time I believe that the warmongers have gone too far. I just hope that no more blood is shed, because a society which is addicted to the killing of large numbers of people on the flimsiest pretexts, as ours appears to be, cannot survive. Nor does it deserve to do so.

To change the subject: we should be very careful to watch for any signs of political blackmail, using NSA collected information, to bolster support for war. No doubt it will be attempted.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 31, 2013 4:56:28 PM | 33

Is the UN out of Syria? Nope.

InnerCityPress
UN Has Over 1000 Staff and 16 Agencies in Syria, Selective Alphabet Soup
By Matthew Russell Lee

UNITED NATIONS, August 31 -- Amid talk of missile strikes on Syria, the UN has bristled at questions about how many of its international staff are leaving the country.

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokesperson Martin Nesirky said that even after the chemical weapons team left, more than a thousand UN staff remained. He did not distinguish between national and international staff -- a distinction the UN did make after the earthquake in Haiti.

Instead, after US President Barack Obama announced Saturday he will take his intention for military action on Syria to the US Congress, Nesirky's office put out a list of the alphabet soup of 16 UN agencies in Syria:

World Food Programme (WFP), United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS), United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO), United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), International Labour Organization (ILO), United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO), and Office of the Joint Special Representative (OJSR).

This list did not include the International Organization for Migration (IOM), though the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs did include IOM on its list of UN agencies, saying IOM is part of the "UN team."

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:03:51 PM | 34

Well.....we'll see, won't we? I'm not ready to accept the premise that he will in fact "climb down". Besides, scum like him don't climb when reversing direction, they crawl. So yeah, maybe he'll crawl down. But I doubt it. Slithering upwards is more his forte.

But hey, if he does happen to crawl down, I see a different reason than b does. Personally, I think it is because there is proof that this was a false flag, and he is at risk of exposing this fact if he proceeds. At this point, his whole "Assad is evil and must go" thing is in danger of collapsing under the wieght of the true nature of the "rebels". The whole idea of supporting, arming, or even endorsing these terrorists falls irrepairably apart if the truth sees the light of day. If he crawls in a different direction than his recent slithering, he still may be able to keep the truth from being widely aired about the false flag nature of this so-called "chemical attack". And the scum on the right can be handed a seeming "win", while they too do not wish to see the actual truth publicly aired about Israel's role in "doctoring" the intelligence, as well as the true nature of the "rebel" forces. Sans any military action on our part, this so called "Syrian chemical weapons attack" can now be used as an excuse to accelerate and magnify the arming of the rebels. And this will make the defense industry whores and the Israel Firster Maggots ecstatic. Bingo, both sides of the aisle benefit.

Then again, the scum in this administration can fabricate and bullshit with the best of them, so we might yet see "undeniable evidence" presented to Congress, (in other words, back door deals, bribes, and blackmails) that sways Congress to go along to get along.

The fat lady ain't sung yet.

And whatever they decide to do, they'll justify it with bullshit. Its what they do.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:04:08 PM | 35

Our friend Pepe on RT's Cross Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FViX1sBtdaw

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 5:04:27 PM | 36

#16....

"anyone pretending that AIPAC constitutes the sole member of "De Israel Lobby" is quite frankly full of BS"

You're right. Those scumbag zionist pieces of shit have plenty of individuals, lobby groups, organizations, and institutions working against our own best interests.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:07:21 PM | 37

Obama's move to shift the blame to Congress for this possible upcoming fiasco doesn't remove the legal problem. The UN Charter permits nations to use force against other nations only for self-defense or when the Security Council authorizes such force “to maintain or restore international peace and security.” The UN has no legal authority in domestic cases, which is why Russia says nyet.

Obama has recognized the UN role, but not the UN limitations: “If the U.S. goes in and attacks another country without a U.N. mandate and without clear evidence that can be presented, then there are questions in terms of whether international law supports it.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/opinion/what-happened-to-the-rule-of-law.html?hp

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:12:19 PM | 38

hmmm, how about we go out for a cup of kreplach soup?

Posted by: David | Aug 31, 2013 5:12:55 PM | 39

@28

Like i said earlier @16 . . . . ;-)

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 5:13:17 PM | 40

The fact that Obama raised the spectre of Iran being emboldened in today's speech has me worried he is not just looking for a way out. The Iran angle is the one that will carry the most weight with the Israelophile Congress.

So it will come down to a contest between the israelists and the American people. The importance of the American public making their opposition to military action know to their representatives should not be underestimated.

Posted by: JBradley | Aug 31, 2013 5:16:28 PM | 41

If anyone doubts AIPAC is pushing, you won't find the truth at the AIPAC website. Look instead to its closely affiliated think tanks, such as WINEP. There you will find the truth about the insidious influence AIPAC has on our foreign policies.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:18:32 PM | 42

@28 Don, you sly dog.

@31 & 33 You two both nailed it.

That's why the rush is on. Because the case will fall apart eventually - especially as Americans come to realize more than just:

"sure, it would be humanitarian, but we just don't want another Middle Eastern war"

and instead

"no way in hell will we risk our blood and treasure to save the lives of those who attacked up on 9/11, these cannibal psychopaths who eat human hearts on video and who probably carried out these gas attacks on the people under their control"

which is surely what the most cursory research of the so-called rebels will show.

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 5:19:38 PM | 43

"Legal problems" aren't an issue if you're a criminal. You have paid attention these last three decades, and you still think legality is of concern to these pieces of shit in DC?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:21:12 PM | 44

@28

SORRY, Don

I did not click your A-ZN-PAC link before I replied

Mea culpa

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 5:24:13 PM | 45

Time's up. Apparently there is no evidence that AIPAC is condoning a Western attack on Syria. Instead, as 'somebody' has commented at #5, AIPAC is trying hard to direct attention to Iran.

Why is that?

Syria has threatened to retaliate against Israel if a large-scale military intervention against the government of Bashar al-Assad is undertaken.

"If Damascus comes under attack, Tel Aviv will be targeted and a full-scale war against Syria will actually issue a licence for attacking Israel," a senior Syrian army source told Iran's Fars News Agency. "If Syria is attacked, Israel will also be set on fire and such an attack will, in turn, engage Syria's neighbours," he added.

Lebanese militant group Hezbollah, which is fighting Syrian rebels alongside Assad troops, also aired the possibility to hit Israel in response to US military intervention. "A large-scale Western strike on Syria will plunge Lebanon virtually and immediately into the inferno of a war with Israel," a senior source close to Hezbollah told Lebanese the Daily Star newspaper.


Do you think they're kidding?

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:28:17 PM | 46

#39

"So it will come down to a contest between the israelists and the American people. The importance of the American public making their opposition to military action know to their representatives should not be underestimated"

Well, then hey, I'll run right on down to my local "Free Speech Zone" and give 'em what-for by golly!!!Or man, this is so important I might just air my opinion on that oh so effective website Obama set up for me to express my all important and well respected opinion!

Remember Obama's sales pitches? Did he adhere to his promises? And you still think these scumbags give a flyin' fuck about your or my opinion? Come on man, that pink cloud can't support you forever, you might as well jump off now. It ain't about "the people" anymore.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:28:59 PM | 47

@37

Thanks for the offer but i can't stand kreplach zoup

Now If you had offered Uszka . . , .

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 5:29:27 PM | 48

So, if this holds, Congress is off the hook and can represent citizens on the vote for war. Or, to satisfy AIPAC, pass another Iran sanctions bill -- they must be in the hundreds by now.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:30:01 PM | 49

@45 Don't be so negative POA. You can always start a facebook group.

Posted by: dh | Aug 31, 2013 5:31:56 PM | 50

So, if this holds, Congress is off the hook on Syria and can vote their citizens' wishes. Okay, and to please AIPAC, pass another ineffective Iran sanctions bill.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:32:44 PM | 51

"Don't be so negative POA. You can always start a facebook group"

Naahhhh....if I do that, I will make it about my green grasshopper fetish. I know there must be others out there like me.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:36:43 PM | 52

"Time's up. Apparently there is no evidence that AIPAC is condoning a Western attack on Syria"

Did you check out the last six month's rhetoric coming out of WINEP, Don?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:39:18 PM | 53

POA

Americans dont want war, but the israeli gov and aipac do, thats where Obama is looking.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 5:40:21 PM | 54

And, in ten days, an eternity in the news cycles, there will be something new, another royal baby or Lindsey Lohan in rehab yet again, something like that.

Meanwhile, here are three other reasons why Congress may not approve war In Syria.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:40:33 PM | 55

Have there been any reports of whether the UN inspectors are gonna go back into Syria?
Last I heard was that they had high tailed it out when amerika told em a strike was 'imminent', without the weapons inspectors contradicting fukasi intel, Oblamblam can paint whatever picture he wants without worry of being contradicted in 'reputable' media. In that case the hiatus will be short even if the tea party rethugs & 'progressive' dems (now there's a about 57 lies right there in that handle)do get together and block approval for the attack in congress.

Old Ban Ki is likely to cancel their tickets & accommodation allowance to stop em from goin back to Syria n I never heard of any UN official doin anything that didn't involve 5 star accommodation n a fat paycheck.

Russia has pulled a good one in Cyprus. Some of you probably know that Cyprus was the favourite stash spot for certain groups of Russians who had to move cash in and out of Europe. When Cyprus went down the gurgler last year Russia ended up holding all the worthless paper. Well now they've put the iou's to work:


The Russian government has endorsed restructuring of the terms of the Russian loan to Cyprus, Deputy Finance Minister Sergei Storchak told reporters Friday.

combined with:

Cyprus assured its territory won’t be used to launch military strikes against Syria, Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides said, according to a transcript of his comments posted on govt’s press-office website.


Cyprus being the closest EU nation to Syria was almost certainly going to be a hop point for the attacks, esp for england & france, according to the same article a squadron of englander typhoons showed up a week ago getting ready to rumble.

Posted by: Debs is dead | Aug 31, 2013 5:44:11 PM | 56

Did you check out the last six month's rhetoric coming out of WINEP, Don?
No, I didn't, because the initial comment was on AIPAC.

As I understand the relationship, WINEP is AIPAC's think tank, not an advocacy agency. WINEP: "A public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on U.S. interests in the Middle East."

The common web chatter, in my experience, always focuses on AIPAC and not on WINEP, except when WINEP is cited as a reputable source, which of course it isn't.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:44:48 PM | 57

I think, this is good news anyway, one way or the other.

Actually I think this is some weird form of negotiation. After the saudi spy dogs "get out of here!" experience in Moscow, obama somehow vaguely realized that "Njet" means "Njet" and "Njet" with some flotilla means "Njet, or else!" but, of course couldn't let go. His smart ass idea: The "How about just two days and, say, around 300 cruise missiles? That's reasonable, no?" offer. Being zamerican (oh well, kind of, let's not go into the murky details), he, of course, had to play dirty anyway trying to force his way. Putin, being intelligent, a statesman and more of a strategist than obama could dream to be, simply repeated his "Njet" and to show his being serious, sent some more Russian warships into the theater.

Wait some days and obama will come up with sth. like "OK, OK, not 2 days and not 300 cruise missiles. Got that. How about 6 hours and 50 cruise missiles, Mr. Putin?".

Stupid, ridiculous, and dirty. The zamerican way. It's about time to send some of those "freedom fighters" to zusa ...

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Aug 31, 2013 5:46:19 PM | 58

Here you have McCain and graham the best paid aipac shills now wanting regime change in syria.

http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/31/321488/mccain-lindsey-syria-strikes-not-enough/

THIS is how the israel lobby works.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 5:48:06 PM | 59

Here, look it over. I haven't perused all of it, although some of it I read a while back.

http://tinyurl.com/7xjrd9h

Do you believe that AIPAC at times pushes policy by proxy, when direct advocacy might be too transparent in its effort to sway American foreign policy? Certainly, I believe it is so. In fact, it kinda strikes me as a no brainer. But hey, what do I know?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:49:21 PM | 60

#51

"Americans dont want war, but the israeli gov and aipac do"

Gee, no shit, Sherlock?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:51:52 PM | 61

@53 Akrotiri air base is British sovereign territory Debs. It was definitely supposed to be the main staging area. I'm no weapons expert but seems like it was well within Iskander range.

Posted by: dh | Aug 31, 2013 5:53:57 PM | 62

"As I understand the relationship, WINEP is AIPAC's think tank, not an advocacy agency"

Egads, Don. Are you kidding? You think that politically affiliated think tanks are not organized and intended to shape policy?

Oh man....are you OK???

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 5:55:36 PM | 63

I realize that everything is not always on the surface, but if AIPAC is in favor of an attack on Syria then why is AIPAC not OPENLY advocating such an attack? Why? They've never been shy about anything.

Now when AIPAC is publicly silent congress-critters will be hearing from their constituents.

Take a look at Obama's and Biden's faces again in those Rose Garden photos. The looks of defeat. They just can't admit it, and want to shift the blame.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:57:35 PM | 64

@POA
Shaping policy and advocating actions are two different things. AIPAC is the advocacy agency that puts the heat on congress-critters, using WINEP's products.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:59:09 PM | 65

Re: Cyprus, that was a brilliant move by the Russians. I'm was still dreaming, up until the UK backed out, that the Syrians would be to throw a rocket straight through the big white dome of the UK listening center on the island... and as long as we're dreaming, in my dream it pops like a big ballon.
....

@Don

I thought you were kidding because there is a giant anti-Syria article on their home page.

Sure they are eager that people don't lose sight of their favorite... er, I mean, worst... enemy, Iran, but I think the article is pretty aggressive. They back the Obama line exactly: "If Assad is allowed to get away with this, Iran will be emboldened."

The Israelis are like the Americans. They don't care about their people getting killed so long as they can use it as an excuse to attack others. And in this case they'll want to use it to engage in a long war against Hezbollah.

http://www.aipac.org/news-hub?id=%7BA86A239E-914A-4F0B-9BEC-D9C6706E98FA%7D#

An effective Western response to Assad’s belligerent use of chemical weapons—and any military action to deter him from using them again—would be jeopardized even further by Syria’s dictator operating under the umbrella of a nuclear Iran.

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 6:01:38 PM | 66

@POA
Oh man....are you OK???
I've never been okay, and I've never pretended to be.
That's why I'm a POA fan, and have been for many years. (I'm trying the carrot here.)

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 6:02:08 PM | 67

@61

Because it's extremely unpopular, except with other fellow nazis

After months and months of propaganda the neo-con nazis and the ZioNazis STILL can't get enough people to hate syrians so much that they'd be ok with murdering thousands of them overnight

So they are are afriad of the potentially danferous backlash from the citizenry

So aipac is pretending that this has nothing to do with them even though anyone with half a brain knows it aint true

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:04:12 PM | 68

do over @63: " I was still dreaming, up until the UK backed out, that the Syrian's first move would be to throw a rocket"

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 6:04:13 PM | 69

As I understand the relationship, WINEP is AIPAC's think tank, not an advocacy agency. WINEP: "A public educational foundation dedicated to scholarly research and informed debate on US interests in the Middle East." The common web chatter, in my experience, always focuses on AIPAC and not on WINEP, except when WINEP is cited as a reputable source, which of course it isn't. Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 5:44:48 PM | 54
You're making a false distinction there. WINEP is both think tank and advocacy agency, plus also a revolving door for administration mid-east hawks. Here's Dennis Ross from Apr 18, demanding war on Syria. Note the bio:
Ambassador Dennis Ross, currently counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, served most recently as special assistant to President Barack Obama and senior director for the central region at the National Security Council.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Aug 31, 2013 6:04:48 PM | 70

I like carrots. Not as much as a nice thick T-Bone, but carrots'll do. Its all good, Don.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 6:05:51 PM | 71

It seems probable now that Saudi intelligence supplied the materiel and targets for each of the false flag chemical attacks. Israel has helped however they can.

Are we seeing a deep state maneuvering to A. make NSA look heroic in its intercepting of communications and B. force Obama to attack openly rather than simply arming various groups.

Or is it simply Obama pretending to care about public opinion and evidence while polishing his missiles?

Posted by: Crest | Aug 31, 2013 6:08:53 PM | 72

@Don I thought you were kidding because there is a giant anti-Syria article on their home page.

Me too

Big giant photo of Assad and some obvious Iranian on their frontpage, Don

Surprised you missed the very obvious symbolic message there Don

Perhaps "very obvious symbolism" is not your forte?

Have to revert to my previous reply regarding #16, Don

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:08:53 PM | 73

Don Bacon

No you wont find "bomb syria now Obama!"-document of aipac site they dont work like that. Likewise you dont find "bomb iran now Obama!"-document either.

Posted by: Anonymous | Aug 31, 2013 6:10:24 PM | 74

@guest77
AIPAC's only advocacy for action, on their website, is against Iran, not Syria

Editorial: Syria Proves Urgency to Stop Iran
...As we witness unthinkable horror in Syria, the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions is paramount. We cannot allow Assad to operate with the support of his greatest ally in Tehran backed by a nuclear weapons capability. The Islamic Republic is already expanding its influence throughout the region, moving military equipment and resources into Syria and Lebanon. Now is the time to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime, and the U.S. must quickly and measurably test Iranian President Rouhani’s determination to bring about a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute.

In July, the House passed the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R. 850) by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 400-20, which will strengthen enforcement of current U.S. sanctions on Iran. The new legislation will expand sanctions targeting Iran’s human rights violations, and, for the first time, specifically authorize the president to impose sanctions on any entity that maintains significant commercial ties to Iran.

When the Senate returns from its recess in September, it should push this bill's counterpart to a vote and increase the pressure on Iran. These efforts offer the best opportunity to peacefully prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions, safeguard American interests, and strengthen U.S. national security.


Now that might change, but we're looking at what their advocacy is now, and I've posited a reason for it.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 6:15:07 PM | 75

@guest77
AIPAC's only current advocacy for action is against Iran

Editorial: Syria Proves Urgency to Stop Iran
. . .As we witness unthinkable horror in Syria, the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions is paramount. We cannot allow Assad to operate with the support of his greatest ally in Tehran backed by a nuclear weapons capability. The Islamic Republic is already expanding its influence throughout the region, moving military equipment and resources into Syria and Lebanon. Now is the time to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime, and the U.S. must quickly and measurably test Iranian President Rouhani’s determination to bring about a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute.

In July, the House passed the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R. 850) by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 400-20, which will strengthen enforcement of current U.S. sanctions on Iran. The new legislation will expand sanctions targeting Iran’s human rights violations, and, for the first time, specifically authorize the president to impose sanctions on any entity that maintains significant commercial ties to Iran.

When the Senate returns from its recess in September, it should push this bill's counterpart to a vote and increase the pressure on Iran. These efforts offer the best opportunity to peacefully prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions, safeguard American interests, and strengthen U.S. national security.


So, reading this, congress-critters can pass yet another Iran sanctions bill while failing to pass a Syria war bill, and AIPAC would be satisfied. I've posited above why this might be so.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 6:20:10 PM | 76

New fun Twitter game:

Find all the American's who somehow missed the Syrian rebel's cannibal video and let them know about it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2013/05/14/khalid_al_hamad_syria_s_cannibal_commander_says_he_has_other_gruesome_videos.html

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 6:20:37 PM | 77

@guest77
AIPAC's only current advocacy for action is against Iran

Editorial: Syria Proves Urgency to Stop Iran
. . .As we witness unthinkable horror in Syria, the urgency of stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions is paramount. We cannot allow Assad to operate with the support of his greatest ally in Tehran backed by a nuclear weapons capability. The Islamic Republic is already expanding its influence throughout the region, moving military equipment and resources into Syria and Lebanon. Now is the time to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime, and the U.S. must quickly and measurably test Iranian President Rouhani’s determination to bring about a diplomatic solution to the nuclear dispute.

In July, the House passed the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act of 2013 (H.R. 850) by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 400-20, which will strengthen enforcement of current U.S. sanctions on Iran. The new legislation will expand sanctions targeting Iran’s human rights violations, and, for the first time, specifically authorize the president to impose sanctions on any entity that maintains significant commercial ties to Iran.

When the Senate returns from its recess in September, it should push this bill's counterpart to a vote and increase the pressure on Iran. These efforts offer the best opportunity to peacefully prevent Iran’s nuclear ambitions, safeguard American interests, and strengthen U.S. national security.


So, reading this, congress-critters can pass yet another Iran sanctions bill while failing to pass a Syria war bill, and AIPAC would be satisfied. I've posited above why this might be so.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 6:20:58 PM | 78

@18: Your link to AEI is a link to the Weekly Standard. I've got another one of the same edition, this time by William Kristol:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/barbarians-are-barbaric_751405.html# So?

The Center for Security Policy also published Caroline Glick's take on it. It reads slightly differently:
http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/2013/08/30/obamas-bread-and-circuses/

The Schleifer article starts off with a lie. It was not Assad who blocked the inspectors' access to the alleged places east of Damascus but Col. Kevin Kennedy (Ret.) in the first place.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/23/un_blocking_its_own_chemical_weapons_investigation_into_syria

Posted by: g_h | Aug 31, 2013 6:21:01 PM | 79

Perhaps you missed the photo, don?

Here it is again

http://i44.tinypic.com/261i80z.jpg

Big photo, Don

Assad +Khameni

Pretty clear message there, Don

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:21:52 PM | 80

billmon ‏@billmon1 4h


@llkoolwhip My guess is there will be so many Dem "yes" votes House GOP leadership will be able to give lot of its people a pass.

If the AIPAC is pushing Iran it's because they think their bagmen have Syria in the bag.

Nonetheless, I have notified my senators - Cornyn and Cruz - and my republicrat congressman that they'll be history in my book if they vote for more war.

Leave no stone unturned. And that's where you'll find those guys.

Posted by: john francis lee | Aug 31, 2013 6:25:22 PM | 81

@74

With hasbaraboy, that sort of non-evidence is the norm

He seems to rely on the fact that few people will actually click on things he posts as "evidence".

Basic dishonest nature of the average hasbara-rat

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:25:28 PM | 82

@ 73 'So, reading this, congress-critters can pass yet another Iran sanctions bill while failing to pass a Syria war bill, and AIPAC would be satisfied. I've posited above why this might be so.'

Satisfied? I think you are overlooking the insatiable greed factor.

Posted by: dh | Aug 31, 2013 6:27:09 PM | 83

we must distinguish Us neocons and Israelis;

remember when Condoleeza Rice was prodding an exhausted Israel in its disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 2006?

Us neocons don't have qualms in advocating wars in the ME fought by Israel, whereas Israelis' wet dream is that the Us take decisive action and destroy their enemies

a limited strike that doesn't destroy Assad is a nightmare for Israel (and Turkey, for similar reasons)

this is what "somebody" ponted out repeatedly, and explains what Don Bacon read in Aipac's site; if you really read the article on Assad, you'll realize that it's only about Iran

Posted by: claudio | Aug 31, 2013 6:29:27 PM | 84

Well claudio i really can't see any reason that "we must distinguish Us neocons and Israelis" since they are all essentially singing from the same hymn sheet

The evidence that the zio-neo-cons want to kill lots of syrians has already been posted here as has the evidence of polling that shows that citizens of zio-nazi-land also want to murdrer lots of syrians (as long as their slaves in zusa and zuk do the actual murdrering for them of course)

So tell me again pls, other than just to please you, don and hasbaraboy, exactly why "we must distinguish Us neocons and Israelis" on this?

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:37:11 PM | 85

"remember when Condoleeza Rice was prodding an exhausted Israel in its disastrous invasion of Lebanon in 2006?"

No actually i don't

The zio-nazis required no prodding at all to launch the massacres of lebanese

The only prodding that might have occured came when it was ckear that the zio-nazis, battlehardened by murdering unarmed women and kids, were making a complete ballsup of the whole thing (military-wise)

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:43:44 PM | 86

But no prodding at all was required to get the murdering Zio-Nazi scum to actually start callously butchering lebanese

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 6:48:10 PM | 87

POA #33, others. I tend to be in agreement that the case for the false Flag has been inspected again, and found to be insufficiently airtight. If it was, Russia's Putin would not be coming out declaring it to be nonsense, had he thought the case was strong. in particular, my suspicion is that there are whispers among our and british intelligence that it may not be possible to keep the lid on things, and those whispers have been passed on to british parliamentarian, as well as to Kerey and Obama confidants.

We had Noirette analysing the videos here and i saw the astute comments by Krohn plus there were those on the ground interviews from Mint news. Surely, the American/british militiary/intelligence have been going over whatever evidence there was to bloster their case with a fine toothcomb as well. If Noirette found the videos to be full of holes so do they. Their political bosses want to know one thing - can the case stick and what are the chances of it unraveling? and the answers are not comforting. Clearly the back benchers must have heard here and there that it can well come apart and kindly helped cameron to get out of it. Now there's an effort to come up with some face saving way for Obama to retreat. At the moment he is just buying some time to figure out a way - an attack may still happen, of course, but not today or tomorrow apparently.

What will happen is that during the G20 attempts will be made to sway the Russians somehow. The one and only card the warmongers have is potential disruption of Sochii, whether by terrorism or the gay thing. But Putin - if we know anything about him - it's that he is no dummy and his calculations are entirely based on Russian interests (not so the US, where AIPAC dilutes the national interests big time). russia will have undoubtedly grilled and checked out thoroughly the Syrian side. That "nonsense" word tells me that a conclusion was reached that the 'evidence" for CW use by Assad will not stack up.

I smell Israel's hand in this CW incident and some special forces, possibly CIA types on the ground. But i also detect that something - whatever it was - was executed in a hurry. Everything was not in place to carry a good story even for just a week. Furthermore the israeli side did not have enough time to get the PR going in the US and they seem to have completely lost the republicans. When someone like Lindsey Graham comes out against an attack, we know the prepared story-board did not hang together.

The political landscape in the US is by far the weirdest I've ever seen it - right and left completely mixed up in one strange stew. yet, i can't declare it yet as one down for AIPAC. My sources tell me the operatives are working overtime. i am counting however on the lack of agreement among the Israeli military establishment itself (forget the politicos there). I think they are telling Yahoo they are not ready to go on to Iran which is where a little escalation might lead, should the bombing start.

Posted by: Merlin2 | Aug 31, 2013 6:50:51 PM | 88

These are the clowns who are considering shooting missiles into crowded Syrian cities and at Syrian conscripts who face battle with cannibal zealots from across the Middle East so their moms and dads won't have to.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/130831175539-syria-obama-advisors-story-top.jpg

Go around this circle of millionaires.

You have Susan Rice, looking as psychotic as ever. It's the face of someone who drinks puppy blood for breakfast. That's certain.

Hagel considers launching a war in a neon pink shirt and a white blazer? WTF this guy is doing I don't even know... he belongs on the set of Miami Vice, not there.

The Ketchup King slouching it up in his chair looking like he is contemplating a fart.

Biden just... being Biden.

And an admiral or two waaaaaay off in the back.

This rouge's gallery, having dragged out this war for two years by arming the worst of the worst and thrown out every possible chance for peace, is going to lob some missiles at cities full of newlyweds, young children, old folks, new moms, garbage men, young parents, doctors, students, young lovers, seamstresses, waiters, small businesspeople, mischievous teens, grandparents, and everyone else all to prove "a point."

And the only question you'll hear from any of them is that it isn't being done FAST ENOUGH.

What do these clowns have to show for their 5 years in office across the world? Lawless Libya? Starving Gaza? Emaciated Egypt? And at home? A burgeoning debt? "Structural" unemployment? A health program that's a gift to insurance companies? Legal immunity for bankers?

These are the people who are about to take the lives of 20 million people in their hands?

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/31/us/obama-last-minute-decision/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Posted by: guest77 | Aug 31, 2013 6:51:14 PM | 89

1/No doubt it is quite accidental, hmmm, and no more than an indication of your enormous enthusiasm for humanity but you are being disruptive.
Think of this place as a bar: drink what you want, say what you like but don't try to start fights, or, before you know it, the place will be wrecked, the business ruined and the liquor license lost.
And you wouldn't like that, would you? Would you?

2/"So, reading this, congress-critters can pass yet another Iran sanctions bill while failing to pass a Syria war bill, and AIPAC would be satisfied."

Let's hope that you're right Don, because sanctions are beginning to bite those imposing them while forcing Iran to rely on its own deep resources. Giving up foreign markets to punish your customers is not a very rational way of doing things, especially when the economy is imploding, unemployment is increasing and even the statisticians are beginning to recognise that they can't postpone the reckoning by painting a smiley face on the Food Bank queue.

Posted by: bevin | Aug 31, 2013 7:00:39 PM | 90

Syria: Chemical Weapons Expert Jean Pascal Zanders Says Gas Might Not Be Sarin, Urges Caution – Mehdi Hasan / HuffPost, 30/08/2013

Zanders, however, is much more sceptical and urges caution until the UN weapons inspectors on the ground in Damascus report back to the Security Council. "I do not doubt [the Ghouta incident] was a major event," he said, before adding: "If you look at all the [YouTube] images, you do not know where they were taken, you do not know when they were taken or even by whom they were taken. Or, whether they [are from] the same incident or from different incidents."

He continued: "It doesn't tell me who would be responsible for it. It doesn't tell me where the films were taken. It just tells me that something has happened, somewhere, at some point."

My own investigation into the "chemical weapons attack with rockets never happened" hypothesis is here.

Posted by: Petri Krohn | Aug 31, 2013 7:03:53 PM | 91

Oh dear, "disruptive"?

Oh lordy, how dare i say something you don't like

Who made you the police?

Posted by: hmm | Aug 31, 2013 7:04:23 PM | 92

The Onion has captured the results of days of top-level deliberations by really deep thinkers in Washington:

“The president has conferred with his top advisors and is currently considering everything from authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes —- nothing is off the table at this point.”

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 7:07:08 PM | 93

The US must have known the attacks didn't happen as claimed. It's got to be the reason why they have denigrated the UN investigation, stated that the attack site had been made devoid of evidence and mandated the early departure on the UN team. The team barely got started when they had to leave. First it was 14 days, and possibly longer, and then it was four days.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 7:12:35 PM | 94

@bevin #85
Giving up foreign markets to punish your customers is not a very rational way of doing things, especially when the economy is imploding, unemployment is increasing and even the statisticians are beginning to recognise that they can't postpone the reckoning by painting a smiley face on the Food Bank queue.

Are you describing Iran or Europe? Sanctions cut two ways -- buyer and seller.

Sure, Iran has been hurt but Iran is adjusting by increasing domestic capabilities and by re-orienting toward the East, where the growth is. (Plus avoiding sanctions in many ways.) So while there has been an impact, Iran is working through it.

In Europe there has been an impact also because Iran's significant trade with Europe has been lessened. There have been an impacts on various European suppliers, including major impacts on Peugeot and Renault which (along with other economic problems) have led to plant closings and layoffs.

Looking at 2014 GDP increase predictions: Euro Area - 1.067%, Iran 1.089%. World average 4.40%.
http://www.economywatch.com/economic-statistics/year/2014/

Posted by: Don Bacon | Aug 31, 2013 7:24:41 PM | 95

#80....

"So tell me again pls, other than just to please you, don and hasbaraboy, exactly why "we must distinguish Us neocons and Israelis" on this?"

Why so adversarial? Gads, man, its a blogsite, not an MMA cage.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 7:31:37 PM | 96

"Hagel considers launching a war in a neon pink shirt and a white blazer?"

Maybe Clemons picks his wardrobe.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 7:33:53 PM | 97

Some in-your-face logic: when Obama states in so many words that doing nothing threatens our "friend" Israel, and emboldens Iran, you know the Ziocon narrative is in overdrive, because Israel wants the U.S. to bomb the hell out of Syria real bad and incur the risks, treasure and casualties, therefore, Aipac is already knee-deep pushing the resolution to use military force and using its many Ziocon affiliates to get it done without looking too needy.

On another note, empty all the Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Gaza and elsewhere and dump all these people on Turkey's doorstep, and you still won't hear Erdogan screaming "bomb Israel, bomb Israel!" like he screams "bomb Syria!". He just pouts every now and then at the Israelis and stamps his foot to make it look like he cares.

Posted by: kalithea | Aug 31, 2013 7:34:50 PM | 98

"...authorizing missile strikes against Syrian regime targets, to taking out Syrian regime targets with missile strikes"

Uh oh. These assholes really are trying to clone the Bush Administration's epic ridiculousness.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Aug 31, 2013 7:35:40 PM | 99

guest77 @34 Thanks for the 'Cross Talk' link. Pepe is fucking hilarious.

Posted by: par4 | Aug 31, 2013 7:39:29 PM | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.