Friday, August 30, 2013

Even without allies, Obama may strike Syria

History will show that the Labour party saved David Cameron's arse by denying him the ability to join Obama in an insane Syrian adventure. Some evidence suggests that Cameron may have secretly wanted this outcome, humiliating as it is.

One thing's for sure: The UK vote would not have gone the way it did if the evidence that John Kerry said was there actually were there. A growing number of people suspect that the rebels, not Assad, launched the CW attack in Ghouta. That idea is not just another conspiracy theory. Each day, the world keeps waiting for that scenario to be proven wrong, but the proof never comes.

Nevertheless, Obama seems determined on a military strike. He has lost the British, he has lost Europe, he has lost the UN, and he is even losing Congress. He is losing some Republicans with hawkish reputations, and he is losing the progressives. Yet he continues to dance to the neocons' mad tune.

By the way, we are back to the "intercepted phone call" story...
A critical piece of the intelligence, officials said, is an intercepted telephone call between Syrian military officials, one of whom seems to suggest that the chemical weapons attack was more devastating than was intended. “It sounds like he thinks this was a small operation that got out of control,” one intelligence official said.
I don't buy it. How could even a "small" CW attack on civilians have benefited Assad? The tide of war favored his side; a CW attack provides the pretext for American intervention.

The question of the day is cui bono? Our British friends were wise to ask that question. We should too.

I wish Hillary Clinton would publicly break with Obama on Syria. The President is about to inflict a deep wound on the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton can best serve both her party and her country if she asks for non-intervention. She -- or someone of similar stature -- must remind the world that true liberals stand for peace.
Yup, the drums are beating anew. And now we have the report of a 'napalm-like' strike. On a school no less with horrific film footage. Whoever is behind this--the real and the propaganda--is bound and determined to draw the US into a military response. It's appalling to watch the web being spun.

As far as a Hillary response? As much as I admire HRC, her views tend to be hawkish on foreign policy. I don't think her stand would be any different than Kerry's [who btw is scheduled for a public statement on Syria at noon today].

It looks as if we're headed down the cattle chute. POTUS could always surprise me, put the brakes on. But I doubt it. Even GW made a statement: Syria = ally of Iran. Bingo.

Since you still don't suspect that Bill and Hill have been a "CIA Couple" since grad school, you bravely hold out hope that she has a "true liberal's heart" and deep down inside... wants peace.

I wish I could share your sincere optimism about the lady, Joseph, but in reviewing nothing more than her checkered career at State, I feel compelled to quote a certain, worrisome motto:

"What's past is prologue".
There is no Democratic party Joseph, it's gone, been gone for some time now.
Obama isn't doing any neocons bidding either, he's just a figure head, like Bush. He does what he's told. No reason not to hold him totally accountable though. If you want to play the part, you gotta suffer the consequences.
And Hillary Clinton doing anything? Oh please, I'm so jaded that made me laugh.

I guess the best we can do is "follow the money". It's always about money, isn't it? War, and increasingly undeclared war, is big business.

We're fighting for THEM, whoever the fuck "they" are.
Every day Obama shows his CIA heritage, what else explains his history
The President is about to inflict a deep wound on the Democratic party

The President is a deep wound on the Democratic Party.

You knew he was a war criminal when you voted for him, Joseph.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?