WHAT IS OBAMA HIDING? INTELLIGENCE DOCTORED+MORE

The issue of doctored intelligence is presented at the end of the article.  Today's Meet The Press and Washington Week In Review news programs did not address the issue.  Of course one should not expect too much analysis of controversial issues from them.  Of further interest is that the term "intelligence" was treated by proponents of a war on Syria as if  anything from the intelligence community were the authoritative last word.  indeed the term "intelligence briefing" was viewed by them as having a kind of spiritual significance aligned with the teachings of the Bible.  It's as if the faulty intelligence that did not even see the fall of the Soviet Union and was used go get the U.S. the disaster that was Iraq never occurred.
 

ARE YOU CONFUSED ABOUT OBAMA'S STATEMENTS AND POLICIES TOWARD IRAQ--- PROBABLY NOT AS CONFUSED AS HE IS!

 

We've heard various explanations from the Obama Administration as to why a strike on Syria is necessary.  It has been argued that the U.S.' "credibility" is at state (because Obama said there was a "red line" in an off hand, unscripted  moment in a speech).  But as Tom Friedman points out, in his 9/8/12 column in the New York Times, "U.S credibility is at stake, really?  Sunnis and Shites  have been fighting since the 7th century over who is the rightful heir to the Prophet Muhammad's spiritual and political leadership, and our credibility is on the line?  Really?"  Friedman goes on to point out that the enlightenment, humanism, rise of democratic values, feminism, etc. has escaped the people of Syria.  Our credibility is on the line?, he repeatedly asserts.  (Of course many of the progressive cultural events he mentions have not at all affected some 35% of the U.S. populace). 

  

 The argument has been presented that, because Assad used chemicals on his own people, the U.S. must therefore "send a message," through military strikes, that this is unacceptable (but who made the U.S. the policeman of the world?) . Recently, in one of many examples of "mission creep" the Administration is using the term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" instead of "chemicals."  But our client state Israel (or is Israel the U.S.' fifty first state) went on a killing and maiming spree, in 2009, in the Gaza war,  by using the WMD white phosphorus.  The U.S. stood silently by and certainly didn't draw any red lines then (the U.S. relation to Saddam Hussein and his use of chemical warfare will soon be noted).

 

  Obviously, the U.S.' definition of war crimes is curiously selective.

 

Very recently (another mission creep)  the Administration is not saying that we should "send Assad a message" but is stating that a military operation against him would be to "degrade" his military capability.  The New York Times reports today that the number of military targets in Syria has been expanded from what it was a week ago and that it appears that the U.S would not only use cruise missiles, as was repeatedly stated in the past, but would use warplanes too.  It should be noted that, yesterday, Sec. of State Kerry seemed to back to older rationales for the war and stated the U.S. would engage in a military strike against Syria "to assert a principle."  Since he did not elaborate, one might wonder if that "principle" was the one deployed by the U.S. when it stood by, or was complicit in, Saddam Hussein's use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.

 

The rationale for going to war is not clear.  The objectives are opaque and cloudy.  We do not know what the end game is. Obama actually stated recently in Russia that Assad's use of chemical weapons does not "pose a an imminent direct danger to the United States."  But under the United Nations Charter, which is the law in the U.S., that is the basis for going to war.  Furthermore, nation states go to war to protect their "vital interests."  Top people instrumental in getting the U.S.  now admit it was really a war for oil.  In some strange way, that might be called a vital interest by neo cons, but probably by no one else.    In Syria there is no oil, that will never be built due to chaos and civil war.  If it were possible it is hard to argue that is a core interest of the U.S.

 

 

  It is difficult to overstate the logical absurdity inherent in Administration's statements.  They are utterly breathtaking: 

Obama has compared Assad to Hitler, referred to the present crisis as a Munich moment, and at the same time has said that he does not want to oust Assad now but merely wants congressional authorization for "limited" strikes.  But does it makes sense to compare Assad to what is perhaps the most horrible moral monster in history and then say he does not him removed from power?  Of course it makes no sense at all in view of the fact that Obama stated, not long ago, that it was imperative that be removed from power.

 

Another aspect of the Administration's handling of the Syria situation is the use of doubletalk and misdirection.  Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week, Sec. Kerry--who was even more bumbling and fumbling than usual--argued that the Obama administration, under the authorization for strikes that they sought, would not put "boots on the ground."  But he did not rule out the possibility of a ground war in the future.  Nor did he tell the committee what Obama has subsequently stated, that he might go to war with Syria even if the Congress voted against the authorization the Administration is seeking.

 

To emphasize  that the Administration is clueless on Syria, It should be  noted that some elements in the Administration have praised the Free Syrian Army and some U.S. aid has been given to them.  But the fact of the matter is that when the FSA takes over a territory in Syria it imposes Sharia Law!  Worse, it affiliated with al-Quada. So, the Obama Administration seeks out al-Quada leaders with drones in Pakistan and kills them, praising this accomplishment,  but aids an al-Quada affiliate, the FSA, in Syria? 

 

But it just gets worse, if that's possible.  Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense, has recently made statements, to the effect, that, after Assad steps down, the U.S. should try to keep the Bath military in power but also "keep them in check." If this isn't meddling in the affairs of other nation states (hello Iraq, Afghanistan, Viet-Nam, etc) and "mission creep," I'll become a follower of Ayn Rand.

 

So, we see that  Obama's excuses for war against Syria are confused and contradictory, are mission creepy and "made up" as he bumbles along.  The  pretensions to morality, justifying the killing of more civilians to avenge the killings of other civilians, are contradicted by the historical facts of support of Saddam Hussein, Israel in the Gaza war, not to mention the U.S.' use of chemical orange, napalm, land mines, and fragmentation/cluster bombs in Vietnam. 

 

The latest new on the situation comes from Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) in a column which appears in today's New York Times.  He reports that the House Intelligence Committee has made a formal request of the Administration for classified summaries of intelligence reports on intervention in Syria.  There has been no response. Grayson points out that Sec. Kerry argues that the Administration isn't trying to manipulate intelligence reports the way the Bush Administration did.  But how would we know, Grayson says, if the Obama Admin. won't make these reports available.  When it serves their interest, such as the situation in Benghazi, all  intel was made available.

 

Last week, the congressman reports, the Daily Caller asserted that the Obama Administration selectively uses intelligence and doctors reports to promote war. An example given was of a U.S. intelligence report that shows that the Syrian general staff was shocked to learn that 155th Brigade, in defiance of their orders, had launched strikes. The Obama Administration has not responded to these widely circulated charges made by the Daily Caller.  

I believe it  is certainly legitimate to inquire, What Is Obama Hiding?"

 

One remembers the lying statements made by Bush, Rice, Powell and Co. to get the U.S. into the illegal, immoral, deadly war in Iraq.  Is history repeating itself?

 

_