The United States government is now officially agreeing with the Syrian government's assertion that it is fighting terrorists:
The State Department said Monday that the Syrian rebel movement's Nusra Front is just another name for al Qaida in Iraq, an acknowledgment that the uprising to topple President Bashar Assad is led in part by foreign Islamist extremists who fought U.S. troops for years in the bloody Iraq war.
That step was taken to somehow draw a line between the "good" terrorists that the U.S. wants continue to support and the "bad" ones. But there are many "bad" ones and no really good ones and they themselves claim they are all the same:
A total of 29 opposition groups, including fighting "brigades" and civilian committees, have signed a petition calling for mass demonstrations in support of Jabhat al-Nusra, an Islamist group which the White House believes is an offshoot of al-Qaeda in Iraq.
The petition is promoting the slogan "No to American intervention, for we are all Jabhat al-Nusra" and urges supporters to "raise the Jabhat al-Nusra flag" as a "thank you".
The Obama administration is also walking back its false claims about preparation of chemical weapons by the Syrian government:
The Obama administration Tuesday appeared to temper its recent assertions that the Syrian government may be preparing to use chemical weapons, with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta telling reporters the relevant intelligence had "really kind of leveled off."
Now add this:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has canceled her trip to Morocco this week for a meeting on the future of Syria's opposition because of a stomach virus, the State Department said on Monday.
…
"Since she's still under the weather, we'll be staying put this week instead of heading to North Africa and the Middle East as originally planned," State Department spokesman Philippe Reines said in a statement.
Could it be that we are seeing a change in Obama's position towards Syria? Or is this all just a ruse to cover plans to further arm the well armed terrorists?
The United States is launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time as it ramps up military efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad.
The last link is to the Sunday Times which can not be trusted. The piece may be part of the campaign by the Brits and French to (again) get Obama to wage a war for them:
A plan to provide military training to the Syrian rebels fighting the Assad regime and support them with air and naval power is being drawn up by an international coalition including Britain, The Independent has learnt.
..
The head of Britain’s armed forces, General Sir David Richards, hosted a confidential meeting in London a few weeks ago attended by the military chiefs of France, Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and the UAE, and a three-star American general, in which the strategy was discussed at length. Other UK government departments and their counterparts in allied states in the mission have also been holding extensive meetings on the issue.
But all this seems to depend on Washington which probably hasn't made up its mind:
However, they said the UK would act only if the US did so and made it clear that British chiefs of staffs are seriously worried about the consequences of intervening in the Syrian crisis.
…
Options have been sent by defence chiefs to No 10, sources told the Guardian on Monday night. However, one source added: "We are a long way from doing anything." An official said: "The US is leading the way. We are not there yet."
The British military as well as likely the Pentagon are against waging war on Syria. The White House may have learned a lesson from Libya where, after pressure from London and Paris, it waged a war to then only find that those people it helped later killed the U.S. ambassador.
These tealeaves are difficult to read. Is Washington changing its approach towards Syria or will it continue to support the terrorists' war against the Syrian people?