Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
September 03, 2013

U.S. War On Syria Now Likely To Happen

The United States, France and Britain have made claims that they have evidence of chemical weapon use by the Syrian government against the Al-Qaeda affiliated insurgents.

But those were just claims. None of the claimed evidence has actually been produced. There are claims of satellite pictures showing the launch of rockets, there are claims about interdicted telephone calls between parts of the Syrian military, there are claims of "signatures of sarin" in bio-samples. None of these claimed evidences has been published and opened to public and expert scrutiny. The Russian government as well as the Syrian government allege that these claims of evidence are false. That no evidence exists because the alleged strike from the Syrian government never happened.

One would expect that the media, legislators and the public would demand that real evidence be produced. There is no sound reason to hold it back. The capabilities to get such evidence, should it exist, are well known. There is no need to protect "sources and methods". Still McClatchy, who were also excellent on the false claims about Iraq's WMDs, is the only media outlet asking questions.

That none of the claimed evidence has at all actually been produced tells me that, as I have maintained all along, there is none and that the incident was a false flag one.

The Syrian opposition is today in the process of presenting a "defector", a "medical examiner" with allegedly some knowledge about the incident. His codename is curveball.

Whatever - the truth does not matter anymore:

“The debate is shifting away from ‘Did he use chemical weapons?’ to ‘What should be done about it?’ ” said Representative Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview after the Monday conference call.

Obama has played the reluctant warrior who would only make a "punitive" strike on Syria that would not change the powers in the battlefield. But he then requested an Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) that has holes big enough to drive an army through and into Tehran. Why would he do so if he really would want to limit himself to a few strikes? Why would he press Congress to pass it? Obama is now also arguing that Iran, Hezbollah and the security of Israel are the real reasons why it is necessary to bomb the Syrian people. Already 16 month ago the President of the Russian Federation Putin had expected such bombing to happen:

At the time, Mr. Obama had no plans for military involvement in the civil war raging in the heart of the Middle East, but Mr. Putin did not believe that. In Mr. Putin’s view, the United States wanted only to meddle in places where it had no business, fomenting revolutions to install governments friendly to Washington.
Well, the plans to attack Syria are indeed quite old and Putin surely knew about them.

The AUMF will be rewritten by the House and the Senate and will then be a bit more restricted than the Obama draft. It will likely still be wide and vague enough for the Obama administration and its successor to justify any and all bombing in the Middle East they would ever like to do. It will likely, like Obama's draft, allow for a war on Iran. From the perspective of the Israel lobby and many in Congress that would not be a bug in the AUMF, but a feature.

It is still difficult to estimate how the votes in Congress will go. There will silent but full force pressure from AIPAC, “the 800-pound gorilla in the room," to vote for war on Syria. One might expect the Senate to vote yes and the House to vote no. Unless the result is a very loud "No!" from both houses Obama will be ready, just as Kerry has announced, to ignore it. I for now expect that strikes will happen and that the situation will escalate from there.

Like the Syrian President Assad I see no way that any outright military strike by the United States against Syria would not escalate into some bigger and probably huge conflagration. While many would get killed and maimed there is one aspect to this that might be positive. President Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski thinks that such a widening war would be the end of Israel as the Zionist entity:

It will simply do to Israel what some of the wars have done to us on a smaller scale. Attrite it, tire it, fatigue it, demoralize it, cause emigration of the best and the first, and then some sort of cataclysm at the end which cannot be predicted at this stage because we don’t know who will have what by when. And after all, Iran is next door. It might have some nuclear capability. Suppose the Israelis knock it off. What about Pakistan and others? The notion that one can control a region from a very strong and motivated country, but of only six million people, is simply a wild dream.

Posted by b on September 3, 2013 at 12:58 UTC | Permalink

next page »

What could possible go wrong?

Posted by: Colin Brace | Sep 3 2013 13:11 utc | 1

The French have posted this on the presidential website (but in french, naturellement).
Lost of talk and plausible reasons that it was Assad. Proof that a CW was used, but no convincing proof that it was the Syrian army (when they have helicopters, missiles, SCUDs, why using rockets?)

Posted by: JL Furtif | Sep 3 2013 13:16 utc | 2

Congress will 99% vote for war and the resolution will 99% be edited to a more all out war/regime change.

One week from today I guess Syria is in ruins..

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 3 2013 13:20 utc | 3

It may be significant that on Sunday Sep 1, the Soros-funded International Crisis Group published a statement implicitly but quite definitely opposing any war on Syria. Or it may not. I suppose it depends on whether one takes the myth of O'Bummer's commitment to 'globalism' or 'socialism' or 'social fascism' or whatever, which should make Soros an important player in his mental world, seriously.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 3 2013 13:32 utc | 4

The next two nights introduce a new (dark) moon. If there is an attack coming, special forces sure like the cover of darkness. The "vote" would/might be a pretty good ruse to give some false comfort to the Syrians/Russians/Iranians, whomever. Also, it is entirely possible, that as rebel forces were overrunning one chem base, that regular artillery hit those chem bases, and in that way released some poison gas. You've been ahead of the curve "b" congrats

Posted by: scottindallas | Sep 3 2013 13:38 utc | 5

Currently running in a banner on Sky news is a claim that a "defected Syrian Scientist" is about to hold a news conference saying he has "evidence" Syrian Regime used chemical weapons in Aleppo in March ... really? only now he comes forward? .. apparently according to Reuters its the Opposition claiming this is about to happen.

Posted by: Rod Brown | Sep 3 2013 13:40 utc | 6

you write that AIPAC is full square behind an attack. I don't think so. This is such a house of cards, that I don't think any but the impetuous few support this. Most wiser heads would be more reluctant, but the impetuous can draw the wise into these snafus. Israel seems divided, I believe the US is divided, the CIA bureaucracy is more divided, the Military is more divided, while the political wing of the CIA/Military pursues war. The odd bed-fellows we're seeing here is interesting, but the usual warmongers (Kristol/McCain) who advocate for war in all instances have shown themselves.

Posted by: scottindallas | Sep 3 2013 13:43 utc | 7

So now there is an alleged "defected syrian scientists" this is getting hilarious. The warmongers doing Everything to justify the war.

This is by the way the neocons and pro-israelis favorite "defected" iranian guy.

Glenn Beck Interviews Reza Kahlili

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 3 2013 14:05 utc | 8

All there seems to be is a mouthpiece for the SNC ... but it looks like the they are quoting security concerns now and this "defected Syrian Scientist" may give now give a news conference in a "few weeks"?? but ... up pops Obama to do a live appearance? ...

Posted by: Rod Brown | Sep 3 2013 14:15 utc | 9

@ 7

" Israel seems divided"


In what way?

Personally I have seen little if any signs of Israel "division" on this issue.

Certainly have not seen any major Israeli political or military figures expressing any strong dissent on this issue, no demands by them that the US not launch such an attack, for instance.

In fact what I have seen would be best described as strongly hoping that the US and Euro-tards carry out such inhuman slaughter on Israel's behalf

Nor have I noticed AIPAC nor any of the other many members of the Lobby calling for a halt to this rush to slaughter Syrians.

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 14:29 utc | 10

Wow, how surreal is that, for the last hour both Sky and Al Jazeera have been bigging up this "defected Syrian Scientist", he is a no show ... opposition has security concerns, and spent the time propagandising .. this coincides with a new Obama PR press speech .. now both sides want to analyse Obamas words .. and not one mention now of this "defected Syrian Scientist" ... did they think no one noticed?

Posted by: Rod Brown | Sep 3 2013 14:37 utc | 11

For some fascinating background on the "why" of the uprising in Syria, take a look at this post at Daily Kos.

"When the people starve, the king dies."

Posted by: Bbutch | Sep 3 2013 14:50 utc | 12

The attack was to be tomorrow as I previously said in the last thread, however something went astray with the 2 bombs. The game is up, radar picked them up. They know now Russia and Iran will not back down, Iran has no choice. This has been 20 years in planning. No strike will happen, the USA military planners have no idea about Iran's military capabilities, they have already lost the infantry battle with Iran, Hezbollah and Syria. Just remember about the RPQ drone, they laughed, dismissed it and tried to make out Iran was lying.

Posted by: hans | Sep 3 2013 14:52 utc | 13

This latest "witness", is just more of the dog and pony show. I agree with b, this Syrian attack has been in the works for years, and it's almost here. The corporate world coup will continue. Don't worry folks, in time, they'll come for your system too.

Posted by: ben | Sep 3 2013 14:53 utc | 14

Don't see any jingoism in the Israeli press, think AIPAC won't make it - Haaretz

Ahead of Congress vote || U.S. unprepared for mission in Syria, warns air force commander The grounding of key squadrons due to budgetary cutbacks have weakened the U.S. Air Force’s interception and electronic capabilities, says General Mark Welsh.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s decision to delay a planned military operation against Syria until the end of the congressional debates was preceded by a warning from the commander of the United States Air Force that a budget cutback in the Pentagon had severely affected the Air Force’s combat preparedness

Not exactly war propaganda, don't you think?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 15:10 utc | 15

This here is the guy who invented the "axis of evil" on CNN

Four questions for backers of Syria mission...

1. What will it accomplish? ...

2. What comes next? ...

3. What will it cost? ...

4. Is there another way? ...

If you want to deal with Iran, deal with Iran. And if you want not to be drawn all the way into a Syrian civil war between factions none of them friendly to the United States, then the best way to avoid being drawn is: don't take the first step. And if you have already inadvisedly taken the first step, at least beware the second, third and fourth.

You can't go to war with this lot.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 15:20 utc | 16

"Jingoism" - pretty sure that word doesn't mean what you think it means.

no one said anything about Jingoism anyway.. What I said was "Certainly have not seen any major Israeli political or military figures expressing any strong dissent on this issue, no demands by them that the US not launch such an attack, for instance."

And reading what you just posted would actually to some degree confirm that, since the excerpt seems to contain nothing that contradicts what I said.

In fact nowhere in that excerpt is there anything even remotely resembling "strong dissent on this issue, no demands by them that the US not launch such an attack, for instance."

which is what I said.

Try again, and maybe try actually reading what you post before you post before you post it, that way I won't have to keep telling you that what you are posting bears little resemblance to what you seem to think it says

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 15:21 utc | 17

17 is in reference to 15

and re: 16

the exception seems to prove the rule.

One David Frum, does NOT a Lobby make

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 15:24 utc | 18

This might be relevant:

US War Plans for August – September: Known Since June By Christof Lehmann

Plans for both large scale chemical weapons use and a major military campaign against Syria have been known since June. Three reports, published on nsnbc international on 29 June and 7 July and 11 July already detailed the planned attack, including the large scale use of chemical weapons in an attempt to justify renewed calls for humanitarian corridors, a no-fly-zone and a military intervention. 4th Media

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 3 2013 15:26 utc | 19

In my mind, its crystal clear that Israel and AIPAC are pushing for a strike, 'cause it deserves their interest so well. Their goal is to get rid of the Syrian and Iran regimes, we all know that. So if Syria retaliates after a US attack by launching missiles on Israel, Bibi will immediately ask the countries they have bilateral military accord with to come to the rescue. They hope as well that Hezbollah and Iran will come to defend Assad, so that the new formed coalition will have no choice but crush Hezbollah and bomb Iran.

A naive horror story? I know, it might be my ebullient imagination. I certainly hope so. But I'm afraid that Bibi and his acolytes have just one thing in mind: Israel's security is Paramount, no matter the consequences for the world.

Posted by: Gregg | Sep 3 2013 15:32 utc | 20


jingoism, an attitude of belligerent nationalism, the English equivalent of the term chauvinism. The term apparently originated in England during the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78 when the British Mediterranean squadron was sent to Gallipoli to restrain Russia and war fever was aroused. Supporters of the British government’s policy toward Russia came to be called jingoes as a result of the phrase “by jingo,” which appeared in the refrain of a popular song:

We don’t want to fight, yet by jingo, if we do,

We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men,

And got the money, too!

I mean exactly that.

This here, of all people is John Bolton

Well, I would not have referred the matter to Congress and I think if I were a member of Congress I would vote against an authorization to use force here," Bolton said during an appearance on Fox News Channel. "I don't think it's in America's interest. I don't think we should, in effect, take sides in the Syrian conflict. There's very little to recommend either side to me. And I think the notion that a limited strike, which is what the president seems to be pursuing, will not create a deterrent effect with respect either to Syria's use of chemical weapons or, more seriously, Iran's nuclear weapons program. So, all in all, since I don't see any utility to the use of military force in Syria in this context, I would vote no."

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 15:32 utc | 21

btw the excerpted paragraphs @ #15 are merely a straight report quoting a US Military figure, who as far as I know, is not an Israeli passport holder- . . . . . not yet anyway

The hint was in his title, which was "commander of the United States Air Force" - the man's name to is a bit of a give away, on that score, imo

You know, if you were to actually take the time to read, and try to comprehend, the excerpts you post, before you post them, to actually confirm that they are even somewhat relevant to the arguments you struggle to make, then we wouldn't need to have these little disagreements at all. ;-)

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 15:35 utc | 22

We don’t want to fight, yet by jingo, if we do,

We’ve got the ships, we’ve got the men,

And got the money, too!

yes that is exactly what I mean. Clearly it does not mean what you thought it meant when you used the word.

Polls indicate that the Israelis want the US and Euro-tards to attack, but do not, in the main, support OVERT Israeli Murder Gang involvement.

And so yes
the israelis seem to to think that they have the ships,
they seem to have the men and the money too,

and the Polls indicate that they do not want the Israeli military involved in the fight.

All actually in sync with the little ditty quoted above.

So, like I said, when you used the phrase it was pretty clear you had misunderstood it's meaning

This is all irrelevant anyway since it was you not I that introduced the word "Jingoism"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 15:50 utc | 23

The figaro published that a few minutes ago:
A doctor who would have evidence of a chemical attack, the one in Aleppo (22march)

Posted by: andré | Sep 3 2013 15:50 utc | 24

Pretty sure Bolton, a well known Neo-Con, though sympathetic to the Anti-Assimilationists, is a "US Firster"

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 15:52 utc | 25

so far I have yet to see anything that indicates strong israeli dissent on this issue, which is the claim I made,

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 15:55 utc | 26

Congress voted against authorizing action in Libya - Obama still went to war.

Posted by: revenire | Sep 3 2013 15:59 utc | 27

@somebody - a piece about U.S. military budget fights with some obvious lie of an airforce commander does not say anything about Israel's willingness for war on Syria.

What's the matter with you? You are becoming ridiculous.

Posted by: b | Sep 3 2013 16:00 utc | 28

As I have noted here at MoA several times, the US attack on Syria is very likely to happen. The war hawks in Congress have a majority and they will vote to give Obama the carte blanche to not only attack Syria but also Hezbollah and Iran.

b, links to an interview with Zbigniew Brezinski but his point that it will destroy Israel is not something immediate. It will be over some long period of time. But initially it will "benefit" Israel as the US destroys fixed assets in Syria, Hezbollah areas in Lebanon & Iran; and Israel can act with impunity by continuing to expropriate Palestinian & neighboring land by creating "buffer" zones by pushing deeper into Syria & Lebanon. These "buffer" zones can then be settled by creating new "buffer" zones deeper in Syria and Lebanon. Politicians can only think short-term. Note Peres supporting an all out assault by the US into Syria to topple Assad.

Posted by: ab initio | Sep 3 2013 16:05 utc | 29

@ 28


Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 16:07 utc | 30

@ 27

Congress voted against authorizing action in Libya - Obama still went to war.

Yes but he had the legal-cloak of UN-backing, via UNSC resoltion 197[something] (to lazy to look it up), under chapter 7 of the UN charter.

Under that legal-sophistry, he was able to give his actions a tiny veneer of legality

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 16:22 utc | 31

As I said earlier in the wrong thread the avid Syria blogger Eliot Higgins, aka Brown Moses, points to reports that Shahrou was reported to have been kidnapped by insurgents two weeks ago.

Regarding how long this has been planned, back in 2008 NBC news did a story Syrians Outraged By U.S. Raid.

The U.S. says the target of the raid was Badran Turki al-Mazidih, a top al-Qaida in Iraq figure who operated a network of smuggling fighters into the war-torn country. But instead killed an innocent family. And so far have offered no proof this was about good old standby 'terrism'. Nor do I believe the U.S. when they say they are targeting freedom fighters that get into Iraq to destabilize.

Rather it was about the proposed pipelines to take Iraq oil and get it to the U.S. Iraq is landlocked and Iran is closing the Persian Gulf where they have some leverage. Iran opened a new naval base at mouth of Persian Gulf. America obviously wants to go through Syria to get the oil to the Med. Sea.

Posted by: TikTok | Sep 3 2013 16:28 utc | 32

@29: Your formulation of the immediate benefit of conquering Syria is much too weak, whatever you may think about the long term (I consider Brzezinski's statement too vague to be worth discussing). The immediate benefit, as I've said before, and it's perfectly simply, is to CUT HEZBOLLAH'S SUPPLY LINES.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 3 2013 16:30 utc | 33

Oops wrong link to NBC news story on Syrian outrage 2008. Correct link:

Posted by: TikTok | Sep 3 2013 16:31 utc | 34

Looks like the Irish guy mentioned here is a bit of a moron . . . .

Irish troops safe to deploy to Golan Heights, says Shatter"

Until one realises that he is a Jewish-Irish ZioNazi

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 16:32 utc | 35

Re the defection:

The head of the Syrian Commission for coroners Abdeltawwab Shahrour, defected, according to the Syrian opposition, which now claims that he has evidence of the involvement of Bashar al-Assad in the chemical attack that occurred on March 19 in Aleppo.

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 3 2013 16:32 utc | 36

b: Re the 800lb gorilla:

A hilarious article on Mondoweiss asks why the 800lb gorilla disappeared from the room (along with AIPAC)?

See ‘NYT’ deletes references to AIPAC’s role in pushing strike on Syria'

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 3 2013 16:38 utc | 37

With Washington's low tolerance for casualties. Plus the war fatigue that I believe has permeated the USgov forces. I believe this conflict will break the US army, dead pilots and body bags being returned to US cities for a war no one wants and are increasingly uneasy about will create a growl and an uproar we here cannot yet imagine. If a single ship is sunk, just one the USA thoughts of invincibility will be shaken.
I don't want this to happen, but if you play with fire...
Iranian Revolutionary Guard corps does not play. The Quds force, if pushed will carry out martyrdom attacks.
This is going to get ugly.

Posted by: Fernando | Sep 3 2013 16:41 utc | 38

28) It says something if a paper wants to sell a war, yes or no. I have watched Haaretz on previous occasions. They do not doubt preparedness. They get really, really patriotic. But maybe it is because this time the US is supposed to be doing the heavy lifting next door.

Of course the military tries to use the occasion for more money. It is a strange kind of war propaganda though. To feature it is kind of strange, even when you try to keep a low profile.

To watch congress will be interesting.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 16:42 utc | 39

Gee, AIPAC's work is done. What a surprise. Boehner, Cantor, Pelosi...every one is for more war crimes!!

But, but, AIPAC is NOT influential - guffaw.

Posted by: JSorrentine | Sep 3 2013 16:43 utc | 40

The Telegraph story about the 'defector' actually highlights the implausibility of his job, in the first two sentences:

A senior figure in Assad's chemical weapons programme has defected and is now in Turkey, according to the Syrian opposition. Abd'ul-Tawwab Shahrour, who was the civilian in charge of the programme's medical and forensic science department, was due to give a press conference in Istanbul, Turkey, base of the Syrian National Coalition, on Tuesday afternoon....

An army does not put a civilian in charge of the medical and forensic science department of its CW division. Simple as that.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Sep 3 2013 16:43 utc | 41

Re the report about missiles fired at Syria: The Russians say their tracking station recorded the launch of two ballistic missiles in the Med. The US say that it was joint US-Israeli test of its defence system (Iron Dome?)

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 3 2013 16:44 utc | 42


What ever point you are making, you seem to be making a complete dogs-dinner of articulating it

If Haaretz was against the War, well they actually own their own printing presses, they have a website and they employ many many people whose job it is to actually write words for them.

They can if they like even tell those people exactly what it is they would like them to say.

So Haaretz, could if it wanted to, plaster their whole Newspaper/Website with professionally authored well-written coherent arguments expressing, in the most minute detail imaginable, it's supposed opposition to a US/Euro-tard attack on Syria.

And yet for some strange reason we see nothing of the sort from Haaretz.

That, to ME, would tend to indicate that Haaretz are not really strongly against this illegal attack on Syrians. (I have no idea what it might indicate to you though given your completely bizarre and opaque thought processes)

which, I think, kinda negates whatever point it was that you seemed to think you were making in your pretty incomprehensible comment @ 39

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 17:00 utc | 43

Explosion in Turkish city Hatay near Syria border: 1 Turkish citizen, 5 Syrians died. @The47th we're watching Mission Creep, U.S. Senator wants to arm insurgents, so do the Brits.

Posted by: TikTok | Sep 3 2013 17:16 utc | 44


Posted by: guest77 | Sep 3 2013 17:19 utc | 45

43) In cases like this newspaper editors tend to make a decision: Support war, stay neutral - report all sides, write against war. The decision is a mix of what they think their readership want to hear - that is their commercial interest - and what the ownership wants - most times they just want to be profitable, though that is hard nowadays.
To feature an article claiming the US airforce is not ready for war means what?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 17:28 utc | 46

It seems Obomber will get his war. Potential scenario:

1. Some cruise missiles will be used. Assad will silently eat it not to provoke full scale war with NATO (as it was with Israel's raids).

2. West will increase arming of terrorists to unprecedented level. Previous stage failed and terrorists were clearly losing, its "now or never."

3. Since terrorists will use CW again, US will claim "Assad hasnt learned his lesson" and continue bombing. This time it will be a full scale air support Libya style.

This time gloves will go off from all sides. Assad will hit with what he has got, but the big question remains - what exactly will Russia and Iran do? I still think they wont join war openly, but how far will they go clandestinely?

I'm afraid Iran and Russia just might be too cautious, not uping their input to match the extent of West/PGGC. This would be a massive mistake, but if we remember, Iran did absolutely nothing when scientists were assassinated, when PGGC were pouring billions to fund Iraq's war, when airplane was hit, etc. Iran was always so careful not to provoke the West, I cant really remember them retaliating, ever. Will they now? A good question. After Syria its Iran's turn, better man up now than later.

Posted by: Harry | Sep 3 2013 17:31 utc | 47

@#41: Rowan

He's the head of the Syrian Commission for coroners Abdeltawwab Shahrour, NOT a CW expert.

Posted by: William Bowles | Sep 3 2013 17:35 utc | 48

Shahrour did not show up for his press conference in Istanbul.

Posted by: revenire | Sep 3 2013 17:43 utc | 49

I am not that pessimistic, this seems to be a long democratic process in two houses with lots of possible turns and twists.

To many observers, Boehner's words seemed to tip the authorization debate in favor of passage. But at virtually the same time Boehner was speaking, his office issued a statement saying that approving an authorizing resolution remains an "uphill battle." And a spokesman for Boehner pointedly said that it is up to Obama, and not the House GOP leadership, to organize support in the Republican-controlled House. "The Speaker offered his support for the president's call to action, and encourages all Members of Congress to do the same," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement released shortly after the White House meeting. "Now, it is the president’s responsibility to make his case to the American people and their elected representatives. Everyone understands that it is an uphill battle to pass a resolution, and the Speaker expects the White House to provide answers to Members’ questions and take the lead on any whipping effort. All votes authorizing the use of military force are conscience votes for members, and passage will require direct, continuous engagement from the White House."
Sign Up for the Byron York newsletter!

If Boehner, leader of the House's 233 Republicans, sticks to his hands-off vow, it's not clear whether House GOP lawmakers who are reluctant to support a resolution will feel any pressure from leadership to get in line. By declaring that House passage is Obama's responsibility, Boehner appears to have withdrawn from the effort — and from any blame that might result from it.

But there is still a lot of effort ahead. Despite having Boehner's and Cantor's support, the authorization of military force does, in fact, face a lot of work in both houses of Congress. In the end, a resolution would have to be passed like any other law, that is, the same word-for-word version of the measure would have to be approved by both House and Senate and then sent to the White House for the president's signature. Senate Democrats have already said that they consider the White House draft resolution too broad and plan to rewrite it. It seems reasonable to expect that House leaders will want to make changes, too. It's unclear whether the final versions that emerge in House and Senate will be the same.

If one house passes the resolution and the other doesn't, then the matter is dead. If both houses pass resolutions, but not the same resolution, then there will have to be a conference committee to resolve, if possible, the differences between the two versions. Then, if both House and Senate vote to approve a final version of the resolution, it will go to the president's desk for signature.

All of that could be difficult to accomplish with major fractures in both the Republican and Democratic caucuses — and with a Speaker who says passage is the White House's responsibility.

Congress elections and some senate elections will be next year, so people have to position themselves in a way that looks good in their constituency.

Seems to me Republicans just returned the favor to Obame saying "you do it".

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 17:44 utc | 50

One thing which has been pretty much ignored In this debate is the prospect of financial calamity and a dollar collapse if US forces suffer heavy losses.

Posted by: Andoheb | Sep 3 2013 17:56 utc | 51

"To feature an article claiming the US airforce is not ready for war means what?"

You seem to be a very confused individual. Why are you asking ME such a ridiculously irrelevant question?

I have clearly stated that if Haaretz were against it they could very easily write any amount of articles they desire to express their disagreement.

As yet they have not done so. Thus reducing your already paper-thin argument to complete irrelevancy

Any way this is just more of your usual strawman distracting nonsense.

You are, it appears so far, utterly unable to substantiate any of the truely nonsensical claims you made earlier.

Posting irrelevant bullshit from Haaretz is just your usual completely predictable and tremendously tedious way of trying to disguise that fact

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 18:07 utc | 52

The above is of course meant for #46 :) and not 43

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 18:09 utc | 53

Wow. Ban Ki Moon is calling a US attack on Syria illegal without UNSC approval. RT is reporting it in big red "breaking news." Now I'm sure the US will pressure him, but really, how can he not state the obvious? What really is the point of the UN if 'international law' amounts to the strong doing what they will and the weak bearing what they must? (Not like there's anything all that great about the UNSC. If countries can be bullied or bought into voting one way or another, then their decisions have no validity anyway. The bombardment of Libya was still a crime.)

Still, it will be funny watching the US force Banki to walk back, but I do get the sense that a lot of people are thinking "diesmal sind sie zu weit gegangen."

Or, maybe, just maybe, the US is looking for a face saving way out....But I doubt it. The die is cast.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 3 2013 18:17 utc | 54

51) + The likely loss in the stock exchanges that was - briefly - triggered even by the news of two missiles in the mediterranean, and the rising price of oil.

Ban Ki Moon does seem to have developed an opinion of his own:

Mr. Ban also said U.S. force in Syria would be "lawful" only if it were in self-defense or with Security Council approval. "That is a principle of the United Nations," he said.

The 15-member U.N. Security Council has "primary responsibility…for any course of action in the future, depending on the scientific analysis" of the U.N. inspectors, who left Syria on Saturday with samples from the site of the incident.

He didn't say when the laboratory analysis of those samples would be complete. But he said its results should be submitted to the Security Council. "That is my appeal," he said.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 18:20 utc | 55

54) Obama needs a face saving way out.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 18:24 utc | 56

@47 "3. Since terrorists will use CW again, US will claim "Assad hasnt learned his lesson" and continue bombing."

I think you're right Harry. The use of a phrase like 'a limited, proportional step' suggests there will be more steps.

Posted by: dh | Sep 3 2013 18:32 utc | 57

It's feasible that the Axis of resistance drew the red line. An amazing and unexpected about turn by Ed Milliband, hung Cameron out to dry, or as seems more likely wih each passing day,gifted him an exit strategy.The damage is minimal to Cameron who was acting against the will of the British people anyway. Democracy and will of the people can sometimes come in handy. Wild horses couldn't drag the British back. Obama has a triple get out if he needs it. Congress, the UN or a timely discovery that CW was really fired by Rebels.Congress will be enough. My moneys on no attack. If Israel wants to stay intact & prevent WW3 then all its missiles may be sabre rattling and sea bound. A road to Damascus moment for US & NATO? Why then the hesitancy? It could be that the decision was taken by Syria and its allies that if one of us is fuc*ked, we're all fuc*ked, and that if they did come out the other side, the only way they'd get a footing in the Middle East, was if Israel as it is now known was gone or empty. Some might say that Israel could never be defeated. Nasrallah after the 2006 war said, "The next war with Israel will be fought on Israeli soil" Israelis hang on his every word. Most Israelis are duel passport holders. The average Syrian on the street believes Johnny come lately Israelis have no allegiance or yearning for the land, no staying power under fire. It is worth noting and for obvious reasons not widely reported, that Hizbollah in 2006 forced the greatest migration of people in the history of the Zionist state.

Posted by: jim mc donald | Sep 3 2013 18:40 utc | 58

Russian humour: The two missiles explained:

18:24 GMT: Russia’s missile defense system “proved its effectiveness” after it was put on high alert following the Israeli-US test launch of a ballistic missile in the Mediterranean, said Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov.

Russia is ready for “any actions, in any circumstances” Antonov stressed, praising the Russian defense reaction as “prompt and adequate.” The missile was launched in the direction of Russia’s borders, he said, adding it was “self-evident” that President Putin was immediately informed as the Commander-in-Chief.

Describing the Mediterranean as a modern “powder keg,” Antonov called for the US “not to play with fire,” and said it should show more responsibility for both regional security and world peace.

He reminded that the US and the USSR signed an agreement binding both parties to give notification of missile launches in advance, which is still valid between the US and Russia.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 18:48 utc | 59


Both Iran and Russia know full well what a trap this is, they wont go into the trap. And really they cant do much covertly either.
Also the american attack would be more than few missiles, the target would be Assad personally, so bombing of his house/Palace/gov. will be bombed.

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 3 2013 18:59 utc | 60

I'm trying to find the news.

aipac ordering *their* (not zusa's) "congressmen" and "senators" to do (whatever) - not news. Well known.

israel talking about peace (haha) but somehow provoking aggressively - not news. Well known.

uk & fr politicians telling loads of lies, ignoring their people and acting like infested zio-scum - not news. Well known.

zusa acting like the maniacal bloodhound zombie of the khazar scum - not news. Well known.

Russia acting as the only real superpower, still preferring peace over war, demanding to see the "evidence" all the zio dogs bark about - not news. Well known.

So, what's the news to discuss?

(this was not a hit on b but on the ridiculous and repetitively mindless blabber and war machine of the zio dog colonies zusa, zuk, franze, zaudi, etc.)

Ceterum censeo israel delendum esse.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 3 2013 19:04 utc | 61

This attack WILL go ahead, it may not be next week or next month (they are finding it more difficult than before) but it will go ahead.

It's been on the cards for many years, we here all know it. It's a vital domino and it has to topple. I suggest an attack on Iran is UNTHINKABLE until Hez's supply lines are cut and they are significantly degraded.

The US and it's wee group of pals must protect Israel, I don't think they give a shit about the Izzies mind you. But the Izzies, they're fucking mad. If thousands o hez rockets start raining down who know what the cunts will do. I think the US/UK/Frogs are shit scared that they might turn the region into a glass carpark with the resultant global consequences.

Posted by: BillyBoy | Sep 3 2013 19:08 utc | 62

NuttinYahoo has already hinted at Nuke escalation.

The idiot never studied Game Theory, or if he did he never learned how to use it properly

He has no idea the most likely, and imo counter-intuitive, result should he look like he's seriously gonna try to pull that stunt

and it'll be the Yanks, not the Russkis that have to teach him about what happens when a moron like himself tries to play in the big leagues

Posted by: hmm | Sep 3 2013 19:15 utc | 63

This article show why USA need to bomb Syria ...

Many American strategists feel support to Syrian rebels and a subsequent downfall of the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad will result in a roll-back on the influence Iran yields with Syria and inflicting a major casualty upon Iran. Syria has been Iran’s sole consistent ally since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Posted by: R.P | Sep 3 2013 19:20 utc | 64

Some people are suddenly getting hysterical -New York Times opionion pages

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization must be part of an international effort to respond to the crisis in Syria, beginning immediately with punitive strikes following the highly probable use of chemical weapons by President Bashar Al-Assad’s regime. The president, the secretaries of defense and state, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should all approach their counterparts to secure NATO action.

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 19:26 utc | 65

@56 that assumes he wants a way out, which is far from clear. He wouldn't have his minions out plugging for war and he could jusy quietly let it fail in the house. But he's sending Hagel and Kerry to spray the maneure and seems to be actively lobbying for aumf approval. Which will be forthcoming.

He also wouldnt be reassuring bibi and perez that he's going to war.

Posted by: Lysander | Sep 3 2013 19:45 utc | 66

Turned off the Senate hearings on Syria action. Could not bear to view more than 5 minutes....God help us!!!!!

Posted by: georgeg | Sep 3 2013 19:51 utc | 67

ADL Expresses Strong Support For President Obama's Decision To Deploy U.S. Military Force Against Syria

Barry Curtiss-Lusher, ADL National Chair and Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director, issued the following statement:

We welcome President Obama's demonstration of U.S. leadership in responding to the use of chemical weapons in Syria. In recent days, President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have forcefully made the case for United States action against the Syrian regime in the wake of its use of chemical weapons against its own citizens.

Posted by: CTuttle | Sep 3 2013 19:57 utc | 68

66)I agree, but hardly anybody seems to want him to succeed. Politicians are great in positive stonewalling.

Can an army go on strike? They seem to be close

In defense alone, according to recent testimony to the House Armed Services Committee by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter and Adm. James A. Winnefeld, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, fewer than half of the Air Force’s frontline fighters are combat-ready; 12 combat squadrons have been grounded; key Combat Training Center rotations have been canceled; multiple ship deployments, including the USS Truman carrier strike group, have been canceled; and furloughs for 650,000 civilian employees continue, resulting in a 20 percent pay reduction during every furlough week. These and other effects of sequestration are weakening the United States’ ability to respond effectively to a major crisis in the world beyond the war zone in Afghanistan.

How can you justify a war of choice when you cut the pay of your army personnel?

Posted by: somebody | Sep 3 2013 19:58 utc | 69

If humm continues insulting to everybody, I will leave moonofalabama.
From Billmons days , many years, I have read all days this blog.
Where are all friends? . Actually only left Noirette,Lysander and no many more.
Please , dont personal insults. No in this pages.

Posted by: anonymous | Sep 3 2013 20:07 utc | 70


In case you missed my post at GTT, check out the database of 2,650+ books in English (in pdf and other formats) I compiled over Ramadan: (Follow the link in the August 25th post)

(If you have a comment about it, please post it at my blog, as it has been months since I read MoA and don't read GTT regularly either. Enjoy.)

Posted by: Unknown Unknowns | Sep 3 2013 20:20 utc | 71


I cannot watch that hearing nonsense either, anger keeps me up for hours..

Posted by: Anonymous | Sep 3 2013 20:31 utc | 72


Yes, let's lose the handbag battalion.

Posted by: biklett | Sep 3 2013 20:38 utc | 73

Finally it was said our goal is to rid Syria of Assad. Altho Kerry didn't repeat it. It's obvious now the only thing that matters is to break the alliance between Iran, Syria and Hezbollah by any and all means necessary. Why oh why can not one Senator ask why Dale Gavlak's report is being ignored?

Posted by: TikTok | Sep 3 2013 20:43 utc | 74

anonymous (70)

If humm continues insulting to everybody, I will leave moonofalabama.

Now I see it. How can b, that evil creature, possibly allow others to freely write what they feel if that doesn't please you?!

Too bad you can't establish an a(nonymous)ipac here.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 3 2013 20:51 utc | 75

Pro-Israel groups back Obama on Syria action

America's biggest pro-Israel groups are throwing their weight behind President Barack Obama's plan for U.S. military intervention in Syria.

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as AIPAC, said Tuesday that congressional authorization for strikes against Syrian President Bashar Assad's (bah-SHAR' AH'-sahd) regime would ensure that what it called "barbarism on a mass scale" doesn't go unanswered.

In a statement it said military action would send a message to Assad's supporters - Iran and Hezbollah (hez-BUH'-lah) - that U.S. won't tolerate use of weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: CTuttle | Sep 3 2013 20:52 utc | 76

If we are to rid ourselves of the handbag battalion could we make certain that the AIPAC Official Propaganda Spokesperson is denied access to this platform at the same time?

Sick of reading the falsehoods that "somebody" publishes here, it has been virtually non-stop for several days now.

"b" has actually had to pull rank on the AIPAC spokesperson once today so far.

Posted by: aninnymouse | Sep 3 2013 21:05 utc | 77

I saw a photo of rebel sldiers in today's La Presse (Montreal). Looked for all the world like US Special Forces. I'm sure they were't, but the resemblance was strong, from the uniforms down to the combat boots.

As to the attack, like most (but not all, which is what makes horse races) here, I believe it is inevitable short of the timing being so thrown off that new evidence on the alleged CW event makes it impossible. What is so very odd is how the attack is being telegraphed down almost to the minutest details. Either it is a massive bluff to cover up the Snowden catastrophe, or it has to be one of the stupidest power plays in foreign affairs since Napoleon walked into the trap set for him by Bismarck in 1870' which was a fully unforced error with catastrophic consequences for France in the short term and Germany in the long.

Posted by: Knut | Sep 3 2013 21:05 utc | 78

@70, I also can shit on you , and thinking in doing it Prag.

If you believe that all we are as you. you are bad people.

Posted by: anonymous | Sep 3 2013 21:08 utc | 79

Once they'll get the USA to bomb Syria, Iran and Russia, when the Americans will say enough is enough, they'll turn to China and make them bomb the USA.

Posted by: Gregg | Sep 3 2013 21:10 utc | 80

@75 Will Israel be making direct contributions to the fireworks display? Or is it just the US (and France of course). That no vote in the British parliament has really taken the fun out of this one.

Posted by: dh | Sep 3 2013 22:17 utc | 81

Here’s what I tried to stop dimwits on Huffpo and Mondo from doing last year: 1) holding their nose and voting for Obama, and 2) trying to stop them from throwing Ron Paul, that “nutty” old guy under the bus. Because had he even come second in the Republican primary he would have had the power to start changing the Zionist war narrative in America…but nooooh, he had to get clobbered good by Democrats and even so-called Liberals, even tho’ he was merely trying to win a Republican primary and change the damn war narrative!!!
So Ron Paul was labeled an old, racist fruitcake by the so-called “peackeniks”…and who’s really MAD now???: did they ever imagine they’d see Obama sending McCain off to be his hatchet man in Congress to coerce votes so he could get his Zionist war launched?
Everyone who trashed Ron Paul and threw him and his narrative for non-intervention under the bus and then held their nose for Obama…Suck it up now!

(But dontcha know a whole lot of Democrats are closet Zionists!)

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 3 2013 22:23 utc | 82

@scottindallas wrote in 7:

"you write that AIPAC is full square behind an attack. I don't think so."

Whuuut? Oh Please! This is Israel's war from the getgo. They had operatives in Syria stoking the fires of rebellion. They put all their marbles on this war - ya think they're gonna just let it go at this critical point when they are finally getting what they want??? The ONLY reason they're keeping a low profile or trying to because they don't fool anyone is because they definitely don't want Americans coming to the conclusion that Israel and its Lobbies have been desiring, hoping and wishing for this outcome - when the U.S. would finish the job for them and bomb Syria at the expense of American treasure and trigger a wider conflict to include IRAN!

And by the way, Kristol is a Zionist zealot and "bomb Iran" McCain should have been born in Israel, because it's Israel first all the way with him.

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 3 2013 22:44 utc | 83

@82 And don't forget US vital interests are at stake here. Israel is ideally situated to help. I'm expecting some serious input from them.

Posted by: dh | Sep 3 2013 22:50 utc | 84

@81;Yep,the idiots all kept saying that he was against the poor,women's rights, would take away SS,Medicaid,and the social safety net,while the true destroyers are their abject zero heros,the Clintons,the Gores,the Obombas,a collection of zombie, historically corrupt ,bunch of ivy league out of touch with reality(just like most of the republicans)cretins bent on destroying America with their neolibcon criminal actions.And the world hasn't seen such bloodthirsty yuppie non combatants in the history of this planet,as the multitudes of innocent collateral deaths count for naught by these ethic deprived monsters.
And if Israel didn't want an attack on Syria,there wouldn't be one,as the Zionists are thisclose to this POS POTUS,they are the VP,his SS,his campaign and leader and confidant(Axelrod)and his former chief of staff,the little hitler of Chicago,among others.

Posted by: dahoit | Sep 3 2013 23:18 utc | 85

I've been watching videos of the Yakhonts. That's a mighty big firecracker. I certainly wouldn't want to be on the business end of that. Especially to put in power the same Al CIAda head choppers who knocked down the twin towers.

The fact that every newspaper report claims we won't "topple the regime" is the surest sign we'll try. The US can start this but the Syrians and Iranians and Hezbollah - with everything Russia and China can do short of war to back them - will be the ones to decide how far it will go. And the blame will lie squarely on the US and Israel for starting this.

As for the G20, does anyone believe that that will happen if the US strikes Syria? That the leaders of the BRICS will go smile for photos with Obomber? Fat fucking chance.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 4 2013 0:06 utc | 86

guest77 (85)

Just some small facts about Yakhont in case you don't know it:

Due to their very high speed Yakhonts strike with such high kinetic energy that they are comparable to a mini nuke but without crossing the nuclear barrier.

And they have build in "swarm intelligence". One can send, say 5 of them, against a carrier group and assign priorities like "First make sure the carrier gets hit, then destroyer a and destroyer b". In case a missile is intercepted another one takes over its role.
Furthermore they don't simply follow ballistic routes but randomly chose erratic routes in the end phase.

Considering zusas weak missile and in particular anti-missile capabilities, a Russian frigate or destroyer with Yakhonts can take out a carrier group without the group having much to do against it.

Posted by: Mr. Pragma | Sep 4 2013 0:19 utc | 87

What a goon interviewing Assad.

Assad is nothing but level headed, speaking in real terms about the problems of the region and what the war is likely to bring, and the interviewer merely tries to goad him into the most idiotic lines of questioning like a 5th grader looking to cause a fight.

President al-Assad: ...should we not succeed in fighting terrorism in Syria, we can only expect that it will spread to other countries along with the ensuing chaos and extremism.

Le Figaro: So are you warning Jordan and Turkey?

Does anyone in a position of even the slightest influence have even a sliver of shame in them anymore?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 4 2013 0:22 utc | 88

Israelis have been up to their eyeballs in clandestine operations stoking the fires in Syria so the rebels live to fight another day to extend the pain for all Syrians, find some justification for the U.S. to get involved and destroy that country completely. DESTROYING SYRIA IS A ZIONIST DREAM. Israelis could care less for any Arab or Muslim of any stripe! Their concern for Syrians is based on SHOW and crocodile tears. Their goal has always been to sow grief, destruction and division among Arabs/Muslims and empower themselves. It's in their founding creed, the Iron Wall.

Israel's neighbors should remember that it gives Israelis great joy when Arabs kill each other so they don't have to get their hands dirty or lift a finger, and then remember one very important fact: ISRAELIS HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR PAIN and THAT is their ACHILLES' HEEL and could be their greatest downfall, and it's one of the reasons that they push the U.S. to fight their wars and it's the reason they have no problem pounding away at Palestinians, because for the most part Palestinians are unarmed and defenseless against Israel's gigantic arsenal.

Despite the fact that Israelis and their Lobby have been trying to keep a low profile on a U.S. invasion of Syria; to hide their prominent involvement in this outcome from the American public; they're itching and yearning for it to happen and it can't come soon enough for them.

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 4 2013 0:44 utc | 89

@86 Mr. Pragma

The Yakhonts are the main reason that the "limited intervention" rhetoric may be true. Those missiles will sink ships, there is no question. So the common carrier group tactics simply can't be used, unless the US wants to lose some carrier support ships.

If you look for what NATO and Israel fear, look at the tactics of Israel and the FSA. Israeli jets attacked s-300 twice, and yakhonts once. FSA systematically targeted air defense bases throughout 2012.

Ballistic missiles are much safer, the stakes are much lower for everyone but the innocent people who'll suffer because of the loss of electricity/sewer/ whatever basic infrastructure.

Posted by: Crest | Sep 4 2013 0:52 utc | 90

Dear b,

Dan Joyner has decided to censor a response I wrote to David Findler on his blog. I spent long enough on it that don't want it to go to waste. I hope someone here at least finds it interesting.

Dear David,

So you're just a regular guy, doing a regular job, and were merely compelled by the run of current events to hypothesize about how exactly the US could find legal justification to breach the current planetry wide concensus understanding of International Law as it relates to the crime of Aggression. Not that you necesarily advocate that the US should do so, of course. You leave that decison to others.
Why was it that John Yoo got such bad press again?

Question: For whatever set of legal justification strategies you decide are most reasonable and and optimal to this purpsoe, explain to me what trouble the DPRK would have in using that same set strategies in order to justify a detterent strike against the USG critical infrastructure, in order to proportionately punish and apropriately deter it from using chemical weapons as it did on multiple occasions in Fallujah.

More Interesting Question: What is it about the current set of circumstances that has piqed your interest? Do you really believe that if it was the Russian government threatening to act against Istanbul in retaliaiton for chemical weapons attack carried out by a Chechen group that had Turkish backing, or if Iran was threatening to rain scuds down on critical Israeli infrastructure in retaliation for Israeli deployment of chemical weapons against Gaza, you would be as eager to explore how international law would have to change to accomadate our new shared reality, or else become the irrelevant plaything of assanine academics?

It goes without saying that I, and everyone else reading this blog, already know how you'd answer these questions, if you would be doing so honestly. But if you're going to respond, please do answer the quesitons, and don't just wave your hands and divert the conversation.

And give me a break with all this nonesense about how we shouldn't unfarily assume the US is guilty until proven innocent. Well, more properly, what you are saying is that when the US announces it wants to commit war crimes we shouldn't pre-judge the possibility that it wouldn't be doing so with the noblest intentions in mind, and that therefore any attempts to transform these possibly noble intentions into legal justifications for said crimes is itself at best a noble and at worst merely academic enterprise. And I think that is more or less exactly what John Yoo, and any other highly skilled and highly trained schill would be saying.

Posted by: masoud | Sep 4 2013 1:04 utc | 91

AIPAC sure looks powerful on this page:

Surprise surprise! Most of those opposing or tending to oppose bombing Syria are republican, supposedly both the staunchest supporters of Israel, and the most deeply in the pockets of the MIC. There are still lots of undecided Congressmen, but so far it looks like the warmongers would have a really hard time getting their way in the Congress. I may be proved wrong in the near future, but going through these comments it looks like many readers' bete noir is turning into a sacred cow to be defended with ridiculous ad hominem attacks.

Posted by: vaclav | Sep 4 2013 1:06 utc | 92

@Crest | 89
"The Yakhonts are the main reason that the "limited intervention" rhetoric may be true. Those missiles will sink ships, there is no question. So the common carrier group tactics simply can't be used, unless the US wants to lose some carrier support ships."

Syria also has Fateh 110D, which are as good as Iskander-E. Therefore USrael cant use nearby airbases too. These missiles can reach with 10 m. precision anywhere in Israel and Jordan, all Cyprus, half of Turkey, etc.

Posted by: Harry | Sep 4 2013 1:11 utc | 93

From the NYTimes Russia reset article:

"Mrs. Clinton, who had several rough meetings with Mr. Putin and did not care for him"

"a popular girl band was put on trial for an anti-Putin song."

“'He’s about lost power, lost empire, lost glory,' Mr. Gates said."

This is the level the United States is operating at? Half-truths and gossip over foreign policy?

The US elite is made up of pampered yuppie dipshits. The last 30 years of economic inequality have clearly pushed a bunch of complete nincompoops and sycophants into power - in the government, and in the press.

There is no way that this bunch of fucking morons wins this, is there?

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 4 2013 1:12 utc | 94

@88 ...ISRAELIS HAVE ZERO TOLERANCE FOR PAIN and THAT is their ACHILLES' HEEL and could be their greatest downfall, and it's one of the reasons that they push the U.S. to fight their wars...

That's exactly why Bibi is delighted to see a chance for the US to significantly degrade Hezbollah in Syria, if not Lebanon too...!

Posted by: CTuttle | Sep 4 2013 1:16 utc | 95

Mr. Pragma, can the Yakhont be used against land targets? Meaning, I suppose, can it come down on a building from above or is it simply of use for hitting ships sideways.

What I know about missiles wouldn't fill a bottle rocket.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 4 2013 1:17 utc | 96

@86, Oh-O ♪ say can you see...♪

the spreading hemispherical shockwave centered on the bridge of a yankee aircraft carrier.

Posted by: ruralito | Sep 4 2013 1:17 utc | 97

Fouad Ajami...and synonyms for ignorant, pompous Neocon ass-licker.

Posted by: kalithea | Sep 4 2013 1:18 utc | 98

This is pretty much the moral polar opposite of being a American drone pilot, wouldn't you say?

A group of people, including artists and athletes, participated in the campaign dubbed “Over our Dead Bodies” on Monday.

The participants are shielding key facilities in the capital, Damascus, pledging to stand their ground until the military threats are stopped or they are killed.

The organizers of the campaign said that they have received calls from all over the world asking for permission to join the movement.

Posted by: guest77 | Sep 4 2013 1:23 utc | 99

Guess who is aiding jihadis in Jordan!Mossad! and that Jordan too is involved n moving jihadis thru their land to syria

Jordan's King Abdullah II has dismissed four high-ranking military officers over passing sensitive information to the Syrian army, a recent report says.

The four officers leaked information about a situation room, which was established by the Saudi Arabian defense minister, the CIA, and the Israeli intelligence agency the Mossad on Jordanian soil, the report said quoting a British diplomatic source.

The officers are also accused of providing the Syrian army with certain information about the routes, which Saudi militants used while entering Syria to fight against the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

The senior military officers were advisers to the chairman of Jordan’s chiefs of staff and had strongly objected to Amman’s participation in a foreign-sponsored insurgency in Syria.

Syria has been gripped by deadly unrest since 2011. According to reports, the Western powers and their regional allies -- especially Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey -- are supporting the militants operating inside Syria.

The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country and a very large number of the armed militants are foreign nationals, mostly from Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt and Algeria.

According to the United Nations, more than 100,000 people have been killed and a total of 7.8 million of others displaced due to the violence.

Posted by: brian | Sep 4 2013 1:24 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.