Obama ordered a declassified report be prepared for public release before any military strike commences. That report, top advisers tell CBS News, is due to be released in a day or two.
There was no debate at the Saturday meeting that a military response is necessary. Obama ordered up legal justifications for a military strike, should he order one, outside of the United Nations Security Council. That process is well underway, and particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the evidence "is screaming at us" that chemical weapons were used in Syria, and he said President Obama believes "there must be accountability" -- the latest sign that the administration is getting ready for a possible military strike against the Assad regime.
Kerry said he had looked again at the pictures we all saw last week of the victims of the attack -- many of them children -- and can't get them out of his head.
"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry said. "It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and -- despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured -- it is undeniable."
The words Kerry used and the force with which he delivered them left little doubt the U.S. will soon strike Syria.
"President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who used the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," he said.
Four U.S. Navy warships are already in position in the eastern Mediterranean, ready to launch cruise missiles within hours of receiving the order from Obama. A British submarine is also reported to be in position.
I am suffering such a debilitating case of deja vu that I can barely type this.
I cannot get over the feeling that something is just not right.
I heard a military expert raise an interesting point on MSNBC the other day. (I'm sorry I did not catch his name.) He said that it made little sense for Assad to launch a chemical attack since he had been killing his own people by the thousands, with impunity, and with little interference from the rest of the world.
Launching this kind of attack means that the United States HAS to respond, which ultimately means that Assad will be defeated and very likely killed or imprisoned.
So where is the rationale for launching it?
Like I said, something does not feel right.
So who do you think did it?
ReplyDeleteChemical weapons use in Syria: Who, what, why?
by Rod Barton - 26 August 2013 3:18PM
Rod Barton was a senior UN weapons inspector in Iraq. He is the author of The Weapons Detective: The Inside Story of Australia's Top Weapons Inspector.
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2013/08/26/Alleged-chemical-weapons-use-in-Syria-Who-what-and-why.aspx
considering Syria asked for our help and Obama refused "unless gas was used or some other crime" I feel it's too much of a coincidence. Syria gassed their own people to force the US into defending them.
DeleteThere's millions of children dying of hunger and disease that need the help of the United States, yet we ignore them. We are supposed to SAVE only Iraqis (all flavors), Afghans (all flavors) and Syrians (only some flavors), because we can bomb the heck out of someone instead of giving humanitarian aid.
DeleteThe discussion is always slanted in terms of "should the US bomb country X or not". We never discuss all the other needy countries that DON'T get our aid because we waste our treasure on bombs.
We have malnourished and hungry children and adults right here in the good old USA. Hunger and malnutrition are both problems that could be solved at a global front. Not saying it will be a priority.
DeleteI agree, something doesn't feel right. There were several stories of Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people and it wasn't clear whether they were false reports. Now, this latest one is confirmed apparently.
ReplyDeleteI don't trust media, nor any sources from Syria to tell me whether this is true or not. I hope that US intelligence reports are accurate enough and I do trust President Obama. It's just that these days there are so many liars out there. We've been bombarded with conflicting stories.
We trusted in the reports issued by Cheney and Bush and where did that get anyone?
I never trust Bush and Cheney's report. I've always believed that they were lying.
DeleteThe Re-thugs, want a war, that they can blame the President for. It is just that simple. They do not want the soldiers to leave. They want their money and profits.
Wonder what Kerry's opinion is on civilian casualties in Pakistan and Afghanistan from US unmanned drone strikes? A lot of those dead are children as well as their non-combatent parents. Not really seeing why we need to get involved in this as we'll end up killing even more civilians that Assad did, plus, the US is running out of money.
ReplyDeleteRationale!!! Not rational.
ReplyDeleteWar is not rational nor are military strikes but I listen to Richard engel who has to travel in and out of these worn torn countries and he has left little room to doubt this was done by the leaders of Syria.
Of course everyone is conflicted about this-we are sick of being at war!
We don't want our men and women in Syria. Yet-if the people of a country are being killed by the leaders and military of that country aren't we obligated to help?
Syria has gone against the Geneva convention and chemical warfare is punishable especially when perpetrated on your own citizens.
As a Syrian child said last night on msnbc-"president Obama-are we not the same as your children? Would you want someone to help your children? If you do not help us we will tell everyone you let our families be killed. You let children be murdered."
I trust my president. He does not want us in another war. This will be a strategic attack made by vessels in the sea. And may what powers there are give us all grace afterwards because we are damned either way.
The Russians-they want to keep selling weapons to Assad and want to diminish president Obama any way they can so they have a whole different agenda. Putin wants us engaged in war and he wants to embarrass Obama so again damned if do and damned if don't.
Yeah thanks. I caught that myself a few minutes ago.
DeleteWhite House on Syria: No 'regime change'
DeletePresident Barack Obama is considering options on Syria but is not aiming for “regime change,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday, as the White House continues to reach out U.S. allies and members of Congress ahead of a possible military strike.
Obama has not yet decided on a course of action in response to the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, but pressure is building for action on a president who has been reluctant to pull America into a new foreign entanglement.
The administration is planning to release an intelligence report by the end of the week that will detail the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack outside Damascus, Carney said.
There’s little question within the Obama administration that Assad’s regime is responsible. “I’m not aware of any doubt that exists,” he said. But the president is not weighing options that target Assad. “The options that we are considering are not about regime change,” Carney said. “That is not what we are contemplating here.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/white-house-congress-syria-95952.html?hp=t1_3
International response to Syria
DeleteAs Western leaders discuss a possble response to last week's alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria, countries are issuing public statements on how the international community should move. Here's a look at what they're saying, as of midday Tuesday, Aug. 27:
http://www.politico.com/gallery/2013/08/international-response-to-syria/001266-017927.html?hp=t3_3
Now it’s Putin’s move, and that worries me. He doesn’t like President Obama, but he loves Mother Russia, so I hope he’ll be careful.
DeleteBarack Obama, reluctant warrior
DeleteNearly five years into a presidency animated in no small measure by getting the United States out of costly wars in the Middle East, Barack Obama finds himself on the cusp of entering a potential quagmire of his own.
Circumstances on the ground and building momentum in elite political and policy circles that something vigorous must be done to prevent additional bloodshed and regional chaos point in one direction.
Clear majorities of public opinion and Obama’s own clear conviction that the United States has spent the last decade overextended militarily in the Middle East point the opposite way.
Navigating these crosscurrents — in the face of nearly 100,000 deaths since he announced that Syrian President Bashar Assad must go — is shaping up as the most excruciating moral choice of Obama’s second term.
He’ll be making the decision largely alone.
Half of Americans can’t even find Syria on a map.
When last polled, by Reuters, only a quarter said that Obama should intervene if Assad had indeed used chemical weapons on his own people — down from 30 percent in a previous survey.
As evidence mounts that Assad’s regime gassed to death hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians outside Damascus, pressure is growing on Capitol Hill and abroad to respond with military force.
Navigating these crosscurrents — in the face of nearly 100,000 deaths since he announced that Syrian President Bashar Assad must go — is shaping up as the most excruciating moral choice of Obama’s second term.
As evidence mounts that Assad’s regime gassed to death hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians outside Damascus, pressure is growing on Capitol Hill and abroad to respond with military force.
The establishment consensus in Washington appears to be gelling around, at a minimum, punitive cruise-missile strikes on key regime targets. But other than a smattering of demoralized and poorly funded Syrian émigré groups, there is little grass-roots support for direct U.S. intervention of any kind. No significant domestic interest group has called for intervention. No Senate or House races will hinge on the fate of Syria.
The question now, as U.S. officials leak suggestive statements to the press and American warships make their presence felt off the Syrian coast: Are the forces pushing the president toward war powerful enough to overcome overwhelming domestic opposition, let alone the president’s own deep ambivalence?
And would the American public rally behind Obama, should he choose to strike?
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-crisis-president-obama-95907.html?hp=l11
There is something I feel about this Syria thing. I feel President Obama is being pushed to the ultimate, and while he has avoided bringing in U.S. strikes, he's actually being pushed hard to do it by Syria and Russia, themselves. How the Syria govt. and Russia think they can win this is beyond me. In my opinion, Assad and Putin need to both lose their positions in govt. I hope the hell the U.S. and their allied forces take out this bastard Assad. And next on the list might be Putin with his dictatorship. Regardless, it seems very clear that the Syria govt. did kill their own people with weapons of mass destruction. One thing I know, Obama will make a very good choice on how he handles this.
DeleteUn inspectors were fired upon when they tried to go in and look for Syrian-are they all covering something up too?
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of little groups in Syria that would love to see the US sucked into another ground war. Not all of them have the funding, so my money's on Hezbollah. They've been shelling Israel from Lebanon for years. They've got the $$ and the expertise.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember just WHERE I had read the headline, that it actually were the REBELS that had done the attack, NOT the government forces... :/ That would actually make more sense then, wouldn't it!
ReplyDeleteI think both sides may have been using chemical weapons.
DeleteThe lines about who is a Rebel or not are blurred. Remember John McCain, Rebel loving helper and weapons broker. His shenanigans are ones we need to look into.
DeleteI don't care how bad it looks in Syria, a military response from the US, or the world for that matter, won't make any difference. Even if they get rid of Assad it is unlikely that his replacement will be any better. That area of the world has been in a holy war almost since time began. Let them fight it out among themselves.
ReplyDeleteAssad is killing his people. So he would like us to do it for him? Is he going to hang out in his palace as the good western saviors rescue Syrian people?
DeleteI don't think President Obama wants warfare at all. He may be back in a corner, it may happen. I think it is the last thing he wants. If it goes off it will be perpetual fighting and may not be contained to Syria or a few other countries.
I think it's possible that the chemical attack was launched by one of the rebel groups. They have been wanting United States assistance in their cause for sometime now but haven't been able obtain it. Even John McCain went over there in an effort to garner support back home but it didn't work. And the realization that one of the rebels he posed with was a kidnapper did not help.
ReplyDeleteRecently, President Obama said that use of chemical weapons would be "crossing a red line" that would force the United States to respond. A few weeks later there is a chemical attack and now the rebels will be getting the assistance they wanted. How fortunated that UN inspectors happened to arrive in the area in time to verify. But wait, now it seems that too much time has passed and evidence that could definitely link the attack with Assad cannot be ascertained. We just may have to attack without verification. Again.
Everything seems to be falling neatly into place. We are a nation that can no longer function in peacetime. Our military industrial complex must be fed. With our troops out of Iraq and withdrawing from Afghanistan, we need a war somewhere.
There is no strategic advantage for Assad to use chemical weapons. As you pointed out, he has been doing an adequate job of killing his people without resorting to chemical weapons; the rebels on the other hand have been begging for international help for a long time. It looks like they will be getting it now.
We will be entering a resistance that has no organization, no leader, no plan for the aftermath of regime change. Another bloody debacle is assured. This is Dick Cheney's PNAC still at work.
With the added bonus of giving Israel what it has been wanting, too. They have been wanting us to agress on Syria for a long time. I wonder if they had something to do with this.
Delete11:33 AM
DeleteYES
Liberman McCain, too.
President Obama is nothing like Cheney and Bush...no way, no how!
ReplyDeleteBut, I don't want us going into the middle east w/force. If we do, I suspect things are much worse than we know or suspect. President Obama knows the majority are not pro war anymore. He is under such observation all the time that he is being very careful.
We need to support him vs the constant anti Obama that has been going on for years. I'm sick of it!
OK. So Obama is not Bush. I don't think you'll get a contradiction, here!
DeleteI will NOT, however, support the President, simply because he's not Bush. I don't t think supporting a new war, when there is so many conflicting stories, is in any way shape or form a good idea. Obama is just a man, and if he goes to war with only the evidence we know right now(and I HAVE been researching this one extensively!) I will NOT support this administration.
11:10 You are EXACTLY the kind of American that many of us are talking about as in 10:48's note! You hoot and holler that you are an 'expert' and I'll wager you are anything but!
DeletePresident Obama is not someone who takes this lightly and is doing everything possible to handle things correctly.
Get off his ass and shut up!
It is not only my right and priveledge but also my responsibility to keep on the asses of the elected officials, regardless of party division. Don't believe me? Ask Gryphen about Palin, sometime!
DeleteI will not blindly support someone, simply because they're Democrat, or because they've had a tough row to hoe. I look past that and look at the actions. I WILL NOT support this administration if they get involved! I do not claim to be an expert, simply that since this subject concerns me, I have read and studied everything I can, and take into consideration the source.
So get off my ass (Dumb ass!!!)
Dumb ass (2:18)!
DeleteOf course, you have a right! And, I have to say that I agree w/you as to our getting involved in Syria. It scares the hell out of me! Plus, we cannot afford it!
I am not registered red or blue - I'm in the middle - but, I did vote for President Obama both times and am happy w/having done so.
President Obama will catch hell no matter which way he goes as to Syria. If I were a praying person, I'd be doing so for him and his advisors. The Republicans are war mongers and President Obama is obviously NOT. I'm sure going in there (if we do) is going to be the hardest decision he has ever had to make.
You brought up Sarah Palin, Dumb ass (a term for you I will now use endearingly). That is one woman in which I'm very well versed. And, I think IM has done an outstanding job in covering her dastardly deeds throughout these past years. She IS a fraud, liar and so lacking in knowledge.
I just don't want you to give up on our president! He needs our support, no doubt about it.
We can disagree, but that does not mean he is a failure!!
I have not claimed in these discussions that he is a failure, but I do have to draw the line on this issue. (red-line, if you will) :P
Deletewhether he is a failure or not will be decided by each. Neither, I'm sure, will be willing to look beyond the end of his nose, to even try and see the other side, and acknowledge good or bad (depending on their thoughts going into it). I may just take the loving, and endearing way you type Dumb-ass as a compliment, and new nickname. I am as easy to laugh at myself as anyone!
Palin is not my favorite person, but I'm not afraid to say that I haven't looked into her, much, since I'm not an Alaskan, and things tend to be more inmportant to me at the moment.
Dumb-Ass
If Assad just wanted to kill people, he has been doing it already. But the photos of the gassed victims are so available and so posed that it does look as if he is begging to be attacked. Why? I think that his closest target is Israel. The pinpoint strikes have to disable his war equipment to prevent attacks on others in the region.
ReplyDeleteThat picture is so disturbing! Cowards use chemicals!
ReplyDeleteyep, I've read about some oil exploration and drilling in poor countries. It is all legal but the chemicals are hell on defenseless people. no one much stands up for them, there are all kinds of cowards in this world. Of course oil has nothing to do with the middle east problems.
Delete
ReplyDelete...The Washington Post cited senior U.S. officials as saying Obama is weighing a military strike that would be of limited scope and duration, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in the civil war.
Such an attack would probably last no more than two days and see cruise missiles launched from ships — or, possibly, long-range aircraft — striking military targets not directly related to Syria's chemical weapons arsenal, the newspaper said.
Such a move was, it said, dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing the Syrian government's culpability in the chemical attack, consultation with allies and the U.S. Congress, and determination of a justification under international law. U.S. warships armed with cruise missiles are already positioned in the Mediterranean.
Opposition activists have said at least 500 people and possibly twice that many were killed last week when rockets laden with poison, possibly the nerve gas sarin or something similar, landed in areas around Damascus where rebels are holding out in the face of heavy bombardments by government forces.
If confirmed, it would be the worst chemical weapons attack since Saddam Hussein gassed thousands of Iraqi Kurds in 1988.
In Israel, citizens have been lining up for gas masks in case Assad responds to a Western attack by firing on Israel, as Iraq's Saddam did in 1991.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/syria-obama-cruise-missile/2013/08/27/id/522393
I truly dislike seeing the step-by-step possibilities given to the enemy. Disclosing 'everything' upfront is going to have it's downfall.
DeleteAmericans do NOT need to know everything! It only creates havoc because so many in America become sidewalk superintendents w/o knowing anything about anything!
Leave it up to our President, his administration and advisors. We already know he does NOT jump into things and has already proven to be one hell of a chess player.
I read a report... apperently the workers that are cleaning up didn't have masks or protective clothing. If it was military grade, more would have been killed, and the workers would have HAD to wear protective gear! There is too many questions still lingering to jump in and go to war.If this starts, I truly feel that we are witnessing the start of WWIII. Russia is already on the side of Syrian gov't, and it will be one giant free for all.
ReplyDeleteBS, most deadly chemicals used in warfare dissipate very quickly. Otherwise it would do no good to the forces that want that land or territory. Going all the way back to WWI mustard gases, they quickly dissipate.
DeleteThe sad thing, we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.
ReplyDeleteMy heart breaks for the Syrian people, but I don't see how anything we do will really help.
The real issue in Syria
ReplyDelete...That sounds like a heavy political lift. The alternative, however, is for Syria to become the new Somalia, right in the heart of the Levant and broader Middle East, offering sanctuaries to terrorists and wreaking instability from Lebanon to Israel to Jordan and beyond.
With such a broader strategic framework in place, and publicly articulated by Washington and other key capitals, every tactical move can be placed in proper perspective and context. Arming the rebels and perhaps even helping them with sustained air power down the road becomes a much more palatable proposition, because the effort will be limited, in pursuit of a very specific purpose.
But laying out the complete strategy in such terms also helps explain why Obama, who wisely looks down the road beyond his next move in this war, is wary of involvement. Again, I believe he has little choice and that he should act more assertively to develop, define, and gain international consensus for such a strategy — and also to gain support for it here at home.
But that will not be easy. And many of the recommendations now being voiced in the American policy debate skirt this fundamental question of how Obama’s next tactical move fits into a larger strategy. We need more than an immediate response to the latest tragedy in Syria. We need a long-term strategy. And while it will not be risk- or cost-free, it will be a far less daunting effort than either Iraq or Afghanistan, even if it will be substantially harder than launching a few cruise missiles.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/syria-requires-a-diplomatic-solution-95911.html?hp=l13
OT
ReplyDeletecheck out politics usa - Palin is slamming McConnell as the republican party implodes.
go get 'em scarah. you can step up when the people scream for you to lead the gop corps.
DeleteThe administration now faces a second test in Syria, where Bashar al-Assad’s regime and its Iranian sponsors apparently believe they can put a stake through the heart of U.S. power and prestige in the region by testing the president’s “red line” on the use of chemical weapons (CW). For Assad, large-scale use of CW serves multiple ends – it demoralizes the rebels, underscores the impotence of their external financiers and suppliers, and confirms to Assad’s own patrons that he is committed to fight to the bitter end. For the Iranians, Assad’s CW use makes Syria – not Iran’s nuclear facilities – the battlefield to test American resolve.
ReplyDeleteObama’s deep reluctance to engage in Syria is clear to all. This hesitancy is of a piece with his policy to wind down U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and his championing of the idea of “nation building at home.” It is not only understandable but, to the millions of Americans who see Syria as a heaven-sent contest between radical Shiites and radical Sunnis, it is wise and appropriate. Defining just how far Obama is willing to go not to act was most likely a key factor in the Syrian CW decision.
Assad probably miscalculated – there is a line beyond which even the most reluctant president cannot go. But that’s not the end of the story. The key issue is not whether the president authorizes the use of American force as a response to Syria’s large-scale use of CW. Rather, the key issue is the U.S. objective in the use of such force.
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/bombing-syria-whats-the-goal-95910.html
Below is something that's mostly being reported only by sites which one might fairly describe as ... "extreme" ? (Like WND?):
ReplyDelete"In an interview given to al-Mayadeen TV on Saturday, Minister al-Zoubi said that Syria and its friends have incontrovertible proof that the projectiles in question were launched from sites controlled by terrorists on sites containing civilians, therefore terrorists are fully responsible for these actions and all their repercussions.
"He pointed out that the Syrian armed forces seized a warehouse in Jobar area containing large containers of chemical materials manufactured in Saudi Arabia and certain European countries, medicine for protection from chemicals in case the terrorists were exposed to them, and equipment used in manufacturing chemicals, adding that this isn’t the first time the army uncovered warehouses containing chemicals made in Saudi Arabia, Turkey and some European countries.
"Al-Zoubi stressed that if any chemical weapons were used in areas including Jobar, then they were used by members of terrorist groups and the foreigners who operate with them and constitute the true basis of these groups and who showed no scruples in committing any act.”
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=78186
It's hard to know if any that is true or not,
But it bugs me that the focus seems to be almost entirely on WHETHER chemical weapons were used rather than on WHO actually used them.
"But it bugs me that the focus seems to be almost entirely on WHETHER chemical weapons were used rather than on WHO actually used them."
DeleteYes, that's because the warmongers want to go to war, so it doesn't matter who, we now have a convenient story to sell with all our media BS mongers in place. Same War Drummers, Same BS Tune.
Nobel Peace Prizes For Everyone!
They love to roll out a new "product" in September. We need to examine the fine print carefully, and watch for any false information. And they're absolutely terrified of affordable health care, which will soon be here. Check your local listing to sign up! Our President has taken a large bite of their pocketbook; which he has, in many cases, returned to the treasury, and to us.
ReplyDeleteTread carefully.
Another fabricated war. The MIC must be fed.
ReplyDeleteWhat was John McCain up to in that region? There was talk he sold weapons and who knows what to Syrian rebels that could have actually been for Assad. Did McCain, who messed up in the war they turned him into a hero for, unwittingly help furnish anything used to harm and kill the Syrian people?
ReplyDeleteI know the story goes that McCain is helping, but I would really like to know what he has done in the region. I am sick of his lies also, too.
I don't know a lot about Syria but I do remember Assad's father used chemical weapons when he ruled the country.
ReplyDeleteTexasMel
"The powerful brother of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is suspected of authorizing the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians, according to a United Nations official who monitors armed conflicts in the region.
ReplyDeleteMaher al-Assad, the younger brother of the president, commands the regime’s Republican Guard and controls the Syrian Army’s 4th Armored Division, an elite unit that the opposition says launched the Aug. 21 attack on the eastern Ghouta suburbs of the capital, Damascus.
The use of chemical weapons may have been a brash action by Maher al-Assad rather than a strategic decision by the president, according to the UN official, who asked not to be named."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-08-27/assad-s-brother-seen-linked-to-syria-chemical-attack.html
And don't forget that this attack occurred only a couple of weeks after Obama stupidly announced to the world that the line in the sand was chemical weapons.
ReplyDeleteSo, unless Assad's "plan" was to openly commit suicide, we're being manipulated by someone who wants that war to happen. So who stands to gain? Certainly not Obama.
Haliburton? Russia? Israel? Bueller?
5:46
ReplyDeletewrong-august 2012 is when he appeared at a press conference being held by jay carney and stated that the use of chemical weapons would be the red line in the sand.........not a few weeks ago.........a YEAR ago.
I firmly believe the FSA is not above inflicting this abomination on the citizens of Syria......which is why this must be investigated thoroughly by multiple agencies......a rush to judgement must not be tolerated.....our own "Intelligence" is not to be trusted.....too many skeletons in that closet....
ReplyDeleteCongratulations Gryphen, for not buying into the "officia"l story. Damn straight, something doesn't feel right. Starting with the CIA training and supplying the rebels, who are now officially "terrorists."
ReplyDeleteAnd I find it fascinating that chemical weapons are an "abomination," but bullets, bombs, mortars, missiles are all acceptable.
And the US claiming moral high ground on chemical weapons? Anyone here heard of depleted uranium?