Any news from the acronyms of disaster is biased against the reality that we can’t bomb the world to peace,that war isn’t peace,and that we aren’t the epitome of civilization that they call US.
And it seems almost everybody has an agenda other than facts,from Al Jazeera to Fox,to the Guardian NYTS cloning,witness AJs bloodlust and coverup of the Libyan murder spree,and note that Syria seems next in line of the world destroyers sights,but watch their well laid plans turn into the Nazi dust they actually are,while thousands of civilian victims die for Israeli hegemony and American political machinations.

Posted by: dahoit | Jan 8 2012 15:37 utc | 3

with up to 50 of his soldiers?
Sounds like one of those consumer ads: Save up to 70%.
What “up to 50” people do in a country of twenty million is — not newsworthy.
Antiwar.com has a long history of dumbly transcribing and posting crapola on weekends. I used to bring it to their attention, but there was too much of it and it didn’t get corrected until Monday when the paid help arrives back at their desks.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 8 2012 16:02 utc | 5

Completely and utterly off topic…….
…except, of course, in respect to our whorelike media.
I missed b’s Fukushima pieces. But I sincerely wish I could find a reputable account of what is occurring there NOW.
There are reports of three seperate quakes in the last week, ALL occurring directly under the Fukushima facility, ALL in the mag 4 range. However, the USGS quake site DOES NOT list these quakes.
Fukushima diaries is reporting that reactor number 4’s rods (spent fuel???)are actually boiling due to the breakage of the cooling pipes that occurred during the Jan 1st quake, (explosion???), of a mag 4.2.
Perhaps, if I may be so bold to suggest, b could revisit this issue, and see if he can find us some truths about Fukushima. This situation, if being accurately reported by Fukushima Diaries, could affect all of us far more than any of the current sideshows being aired by the MSM.
Frankly, if I’m glowin’ in the dark, who the hell slithers into the Oval Office, and what country we make a mess out of next, is the very least of my concerns.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 8 2012 16:39 utc | 7

John Glaser (according to Twitter) is an Assistant Editor at Antiwar.com….If this is so, Raimondo needs to take a second look at their articles…

Posted by: georgeg | Jan 8 2012 17:04 utc | 9

Sibil Edmonds has been viewing Antiwar.com with suspicion for a while now –
“I am going to list one major hall of shame member, my one major disappointment:
Antiwar.com
With the exception of Raimondo, Giraldi and a couple of other stellar writers there, their new additions, Ditz & Keaton, have been filling up their front page with all the culprit MSM headlines beating the war drums on Syria, and have been doing so for months. As I’ve said before, a few independent journalists and authors will be writing a series and providing astonishing statistics on AntiWar.Com’s recent troubling changes. Meanwhile I want to go on record and reveal that the new management has been refusing to publish any articles submitted to them on all documented contradictory, factual, reports on Syria. In fact, I have been banned and censored from even posting comments on their site (several respectful but critical comments were taken out, deleted and censored by their new managers).
You see, what really gets my blood boiling on AntiWar.Com is their name, title: Anti War, for Pete’s sake! And what these dubious new additions have been doing lately is the exact opposite. So I hope the good guys there would either kick out these infiltrators, or, just change their name to ProWar.Com. They made it to the top of our list of hall of shame contenders on Syria, Libya and beyond.”

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jan 8 2012 17:56 utc | 11

There’s one other Syria headline on antiwar.com today:
“Syria opposition claims Assad behind deadly Damascus terrorist attack”
— John Glaser referring to a story in Haaretz based on two questionable YouTube videos

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 8 2012 18:23 utc | 13

Recommended reading on the propaganda effort against Syria.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NA05Ak03.html
It quotes Stratfor as saying: “Most of the [Syrian] opposition’s more serious claims have turned out to be grossly exaggerated or simply untrue … revealing more about the opposition’s weaknesses than the level of instability inside the Syrian regime.” The piece even footnotes its sources, almost unheard of in today’s web journalism.
The BS do flow!

Posted by: JohnH | Jan 9 2012 0:22 utc | 15

Below (in reverse order) is my recent correspondence with AntiWar.com to whom I used to contribute. Following that old correspondence is the letter that I sent today.
On 31 August 2011 08:39, Angela Keaton ‪‬ wrote:
XX,
You don’t receive letters twice a month. Please unsubscribe. 
Peace,
Angela
Angela Keaton
Director of Operations
Antiwar.com
323-512-7095
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:38 PM, XX‪>‬ wrote:
Angela,
I do promise to do so if you stop sending your begging letters twice a month.
Peace
XX
On 30 August 2011 23:54, Angela Keaton ‪‬ wrote:
XX,
We are relieved as well.  Perhaps you will stop writing this email twice a year.  
Peace,
Angela
Angela Keaton
Director of Operations
Antiwar.com
323-512-7095
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 3:23 AM,XX wrote:
I have now stopped subscribing to (and pretty well reading) Antiwar.com.
There are a number of reasons for this. It started as a breath of fresh air that has now become stale. Too many and too frequent fund-raisers; too many sub-standard contributors etc, etc.
Much of the published “information” is recycled government propaganda, and the comments allowed are heavily censored. Such is the case, for example, with the excellent Paul Craig-Roberts who can get much of his work published in Antiwar.com, but anything mentioning the 9/11 false flag and the Israeli involvement is utterly verboten.
Pure gatekeeping, and I know not why. But 9/11 is the litmus test and Antiwar.com has failed abysmally. Hence, any serious anti-war movement has moved on and must by-pass the establishment gatekeepers.
As a mug contributor to your site who quite rapidly became disillusioned with your MSM agenda I do hope that quite soon you will disappear to be replaced by a genuine anti-War movement not just in it for the money. Quite apart from Sibel Edmond’s revealing piece at Information Clearing House, I now learn from ‘Moon of Alabama” that – essentially you have been taken over – see http://www.moonofalabama.org/2012/01/msnbc-creates-a-top-syrian-general.html#comments.
One comment in particular deserves consideration: ”
If Sibel Edmonds is just now waking up to the questionability of antiwar.com? Where has she been??? They are basically an MSM aggregator. Ditz & Co are there to summarize and interpret MSM links- why pay that salary- we can read in the original ourselves and dont need their amateur ‘analysis’.
Justin Raimondo lost all credibility when he staunchly defended antiwar.com’s hiring of MSM’s financial media shill Doug Bandow after Bandow was fired from Business Week for taking payoffs to write articles for zio-Lobbyist Felon Jack Abramoff promoting Abramoff’s agenda and lobbying goals. 
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/dec2005/nf20051216_1037_db016.htm
CATO Institute, which was pushing for social security to be privatized and invested in the stock market, also pushes globalization. 
Posters have been banned from the site for coming down on zionism and other taboo topics- some with ugly epithets from antiwar.com ‘editors’. 
Even aside from that, not much there that is ever new or newsworthy. Just a second rate aggregator dressed up with a couple of gems like Giraldi- who suffers by being associated with them. Giraldi has his own site- go there direct. 
Antiwar.com = More fake opposition press like ‘Democracy NWO’.
Damn you for taking my money and damn your phony site.

Posted by: not important | Jan 9 2012 9:16 utc | 17

“And why is Justin Raimondo’s supposedly honest antiwar.com site featuring this nonsense?”
My report, “Antiwar.com – Your Best Source for Antiwar News?” just published at Boiling Frogs Post may provide some answers to your question:
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2012/01/08/antiwar-com-%e2%80%93-your-best-source-for-antiwar-news/

Posted by: Maidhc Ó Cathail | Jan 9 2012 13:00 utc | 19

Rob @18, yes, finally someone else states what I have asserted on some of the other threads.

Posted by: Morocco Bama | Jan 9 2012 14:17 utc | 21

re Rob

However, I’m still trying to figure out the equation which posits that :
No war propaganda or Imperial/NATO/GCC military intervention = There is no opposition to (wonderful guy) Assad.

You are not trying to figure it out, because no-one has said that. You are putting up a straw man.
The point that everyone is making, including b, is that the opposition to Asad is wildly overexaggerated, for propagandistic purposes. There is still a very great deal of support for Asad. Rightly or wrongly, that is what Syrians think. It is true that there is less support than there was. Some former supporters are getting fed up.
The opposition are a pretty feeble lot. They produce fake videos all the time. There was a very funny one the other day, the second day of the Arab league monitor visits, where the guy videoing was shaking around to the sound of gunfire and explosions, and apparently having a tough time in filming. But the Sudanese monitors being filmed were calmly taking photos without a care in the world, evidently not hearing anything. They must have thought the videoer had gone off his head.
Another thing you should look out for is the absence of building destruction. Particularly in Homs. I’ve mentioned this before, but it is absolutely true. In spite of all the claims from the opposition of the destruction of Homs by the Syrian army, there is not a single building destroyed to be seen in the videos, apart from a few burnt out. The Syrian army is being very restrained.

Posted by: alexno | Jan 9 2012 15:21 utc | 23

An opinion poll conducted in December found that 55% of Syrians do not want Assad to step down.
55% support? Obama currently has 47% job approval (RCP ave.).

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 9 2012 15:44 utc | 25

Posted by: Rob | Jan 9, 2012 7:37:47 AM | 18
The point is not just Syria. We are well aware that reports are skewed. At issue is Antiwar.com’s phony ‘alternative’ coverage, and the Bandow episode makes it a patent, fully-endorsed fraud. Too bad Bandow is not the anomoly over there. Sibel Edmonds is quite correct in her assessment of that phony site.

Posted by: likeo2 | Jan 9 2012 15:55 utc | 27

@Don Bacon , @alexno
As for polls, I suppose you’re referring to this :
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?article=21418
1) There is a tendency for those skeptical of Western media reports (which are often propaganda) on the various Arab/Muslim countries to attribute every uprising to the typical CIA/NED conspiracy, “color revolution”, etc. without having any real knowledge of the places – I’ve seen this too often to even cite it here, you can find examples anywhere. Or to praise the Great Leader’s social programs as if that erases any other human rights or civil liberties considerations (think Gaddafi, Chavez, Castro). This lacks objectivity. Some of it is fake, and some of it is real, you have to try to unravel the two.
2) Nobody in their right mind is calling for military intervention, and sanctions don’t solve the problem, as they almost invariably harm the population, leaving those in power untouched. The thing is, if there is going to be intervention, they are doing it already, and they certainly won’t ask your opinion about it.
3) “The opposition are a pretty feeble lot. They produce fake videos all the time.”
– How do you know this? Of course it’s possible, but you seem certain.
Just as it’s absurd to believe every corporate media piece about Syria, it’s absurd to discount every video or report coming out of Syria as anti-Assad propaganda. The fact is that we just don’t know. If you have real sources in Syria, with actual knowledge of the country, please let us know and refer us to them.
4) I’ve read the reports by Giraldi, Sibel Edmonds and Escobar about NATO forces helping rebels at Incirlik base, and the 2 pres. findings about Syria and Iran, and possible troop movements in Jordan, and it’s obvious that there is something going on behind the scenes, and that a possible US/NATO/GCC alliance will try to influence events in their favor. This is all very vague, but very probable.
What I’m saying is that those opposing intervention try to stick to the same principle of skepticism reserved for the MSM when they come across any information which confirms their opinion, instead of reflexively accepting it, that’s all. You shouldn’t take every single report at face value simply because it says what you want to hear.
This is still one of the best articles on the Libya debacle that I’ve read, and I think it applies here too :
https://dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com/2011/04/06/libya-and-the-law-of-unintended-consequences/
@PissedOffAmerican :
Actually, putting the criminals in DC out of power is a great idea, should have been done long ago.

Posted by: Rob | Jan 9 2012 18:03 utc | 29