Tag Archives: John McCain

| US is a knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture – George Galloway!

Posted on by
1

The US is a knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture – George Galloway ~  John Robles, The Voice of Russia.

The high point of the American Empire has passed and mercifully we have emerged intact from the 20 very dangerous years during which the United States was the sole superpower in the world. We must never allow ourselves to endure that trial again. Power in the world is now passing to the East, to China, to Russia and to other rising nations as the United States is an aging tiger whose teeth are falling out.

This was stated in an interview which outspoken and brutally honest British MP George Galloway granted to the Voice of Russia’s John Robles. With regard to US surrogate NATO which is circling both Russia and China with bases and nuclear weapons, he labeled it an “imperial war machine” and called it “the greatest danger to peace and security in the world.” Mr. Galloway was also candid on his assessment of Saudi Arabia which he called a “gangster state” with Prince Bandar acting as chief capo who delivers severed horse’s heads into the bed of whomsoever they wish to intimidate.

As for Ukraine Mr. Galloway put the situation into stark perspective by saying: “Can you imagine what would happen if President Putin went to the streets of Toronto on street demonstrations whipping up anti-American feeling, in neighboring country. And yet this is precisely what is happening on the front line in Kiev now,” he added; again President Putin has again played a masterful diplomatic game. As for declining US hegemony he stated: “… they are losing and losing and losing. … they are losing because their power is waning, because hard power is waning, their financial power is defunct and their soft power, their cultural power is virtually non-existent. Anyone who takes a look at John McCain and thinks that that is a cultural soft power icon to desire, to head towards, would need their head examined. This is knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture,” he stated.

Download audio file

This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with George Galloway, a member of the British Parliament. This is part 3 of an interview in progress. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

Part 1,  Part 2

Robles: Another country that, I just want to add to your list, was Saudi Arabia when Prince Bandar threatened terrorist attacks on the Olympic Games in Sochi. Russia would have had every right to just wipe it off the map.

Galloway: Well, Saudi Arabia is a gangster state and Bandar is increasingly the chief capo. He is the man who goes around delivering the severed horse’s headinto the bed of whomsoever they wish to intimidate.

They try bribery first of all and then they try browbeating, and finally they are ready to bully through the use of their surrogate auxiliary terrorist army.

And they found that President Putin could be neither bribed nor bullied, and he was sent away with a flea in his ear. But he was very lucky; it was only a flea in his ear. Frankly if he’d tried it with me he’d have gone home without an ear.

Robles: Yeah, I mean, you don’t threaten a nuclear superpower, I’m sorry, the West can say whatever they want but Russia is still a nuclear power. You don’t tell a president: “We are going to unleash Al Qaeda; we control your Chechen terrorists”. What about Scotland? You are Scottish, yes, sir?

Galloway: Yes, I am, yes.

Robles: What about Scottish independence? Do you think that will happen? How is it going?

Galloway: I don’t think it will happen and I don’t want it to happen. I’m against the breakup of states. This small country has been one country for more than 300 years. We speak the same language, we have a common language, a common culture, a common economic situation and once upon a time, if only briefly, we did some good things in the world, particularly in 1940 and 1941 when we stood alone against Fascist barbarism,and we didn’t ask the people who did so whether they were Scottish or whether they were English.

And I just think that working people divided are always weakened, working people together will be stronger. So, I was against the breakup of Yugoslavia, I was against the breakup of the USSR, I can hardly be in favor of the breakup of this small country.

Robles: Ok. Can you give us your opinion of sovereignty in the EU with regard to, for example, Ukraine and how much do countries lose in terms of sovereignty in your opinion when they join the EU?

Galloway: Before I answer that, let me just make this point. Can you imagine what would happen if President Putin went to the streets of Toronto on street demonstrations whipping up anti-American feeling, in neighboring country. And yet this is precisely what is happening on the front line in Kiev now. European and North American politicians are on the streets of Russia’s neighboring country whipping up anti-Russian feeling. But it seems to me, maybe I’m wrong – you will know better than I – but it’s running out of steam.

Again President Putin with his economic arrangements that he has now made with the President of Ukraine has again played a masterful diplomatic game. And the European Union, virtually bankrupt, is not in a position to match what Russia can do to help Ukraine in this terrible economic situation that it is in.

But to answer your point, the European Union is a good idea in principle. It has stopped the countries of the west of Europe in the first instance, from attacking each other, and murdering each other in their millions, which they did from 1870 until 1945, three times at least. And that is a good thing.

It is a good thing if working people in the European continent, not only within the boundaries of the European Union but throughout the European continent, can reach a common agreements on social policy, on environmental issues, on issues of social security and even common defense. There is nothing wrong with any of these things.

But the European Union is utterly dysfunctional when it comes to the manner in which it is run and the free market banking principles on which it is based.

We have a Reganite-Thatcherite European Central Bank which sets monetary and fiscal policy for the Franco-German center and not for the periphery even of Western Europe, never mind Central and Eastern Europe as they become more often members of the European Union.

So it is a very dysfunctional organization, it is broke and it ought to fix its own problems rather than sticking its nose into the problems of Ukraine and the Ukraine’s relationship with Russia.

Robles: I see. And by extension – NATO, what is your opinion about NATO and their expansion?

Galloway: Well, NATO is an imperial war machine; its name is increasingly of course a misnomer. The North Atlantic has been stretched as a geographical definition as far as the desserts of North Africa. And the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is circling both Russia and China with bases and nuclear armed warships and airplanes and so on. And it is the greatest danger to peace and security in the world.

And one of the many reasons why I find the call for Scottish independence implausible is that the Independence Party plans on making the independent Scotland a member of NATO which makes a mockery of its professed intention to be rid of nuclear weapons. You cannot be rid of nuclear weapons whilst joining a nuclear armed club.

Robles: Do you see NATO weakening or just growing and growing beyond all control?

Galloway: No, no, they are definitely weakening. The high point of the American Empire has passed as the high point of the British Empire before it passed.

Power is passing to the East, to China, to Russia and to other rising countries in the East and the South. I wouldn’t say as Chairman Mao said 30 years or 40 years, prematurely, that the United States was a paper tiger, but it is definitely an aging tiger whose teeth are beginning to fall out.

Robles: I see. Very well put, thank you sir – brilliant.

Galloway: Thank you.

Robles: If I could last, very last point and then I’ll let you go: Ukraine, right; Syria, we think Ukraine it was like revenge for their loss in Syria, right? Now if they lose in Ukraine what is the next hot spot going to be in your opinion?

Galloway: Well, the thing is they are losing and losing and losing. Now that might make them more angry but it doesn’t make them more able to win. They are losing because they are losing, they are losing because their power is waning, because hard power is waning, their financial power is defunct and their soft power, their “cultural power” is virtually non-existent.

Anyone who takes a look and a listen to John McCain and thinks that that is a cultural soft power icon to desire, to head towards, would need their head examined. This is knuckle-dragging, low grade moronic culture. And I don’t think that the great people of the Ukraine or in many other places are attracted to the soft power of the United States. The United States doesnot have the financial and economic wherewithal to make it worth their while.

So people are increasingly looking to themselves I hope, and looking elsewhere to other rising powers in the world. And let’s hope that in the next year and the next decade we have a number of great powers in the world.

Mercifully we have emerged intact from the very dangerous twenty years in which the United States was the sole superpower in the world, we escaped that and we must never allow ourselves to endure that trial again.

Robles: I see. Can we finish up with your film? Can you give us a few details maybe plug it if you want to, tell us where can we go.I understand, your film its very unique in that it’s being funded by the people.

Galloway: Yes, the Killing of Tony Blair began on Kickstarter, which is a crowd-funding mechanism. We asked for £50,000 and we got £160,000. And the money is still coming in, it can’t come in now by Kickstarter but you can still support us through PayPal, you can go to theblairdoc.com.

You can follow us on Twitter at the @TheBlairDoc. There are many many ways, if you forget any of those, just go to George Galloway MP on Facebook or follow me @George Galloway on Twitter and I’ll put you in the right direction. The film should be out next autumn, and it is coming to a cinema near you.

Robles: OK. I’m sure it will be very popular in Russia; hopefully we can get a Russian version.

Galloway: I hope so. Thanks very much indeed, John.

Robles: Ok, thank you, sir, it was an honor and a pleasure, and thanks for your time.

Galloway: My pleasure, my pleasure, thanks, bye.

Robles: Ok, bye-bye.

That was the end of Part 3 of an interview with British Member of Parliament George Galloway. You can find the previous parts of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com. Thank you very much for listening and as always I wish all the best and happy holidays wherever you may be.

Part 1, Part 2

________________________________________________________________________

US Hijacked2 mlk justice1

Related articles

US except1A police state usaA

| O’Bagy: Controversial Syria researcher fired over doctorate claim!

Posted on by
1

Controversial Syria Researcher Fired Over Doctorate Claim ~ Susannah George, BuzzFeed.

Elizabeth O’Bagy’s ties to the Syrian opposition had become an issue.

A young researcher whose opinions on Syria were cited by both Senator McCain and Secretary of State John Kerry in congressional testimony last week has been fired from the Institute for the Study of War for allegedly faking her academic credentials.

The institute issued a statement on its website concerning the researcher, Elizabeth O’Bagy:

The Institute for the Study of War has learned and confirmed that, contrary to her representations, Ms. Elizabeth O’Bagy does not in fact have a Ph.D. degree from Georgetown University. ISW has accordingly terminated Ms. O’Bagy’s employment, effective immediately.

O’Bagy and her op-ed drew scrutiny last week when the Wall Street Journal failed to disclose O’Bagy’s ties to an advocacy group backing the Syrian opposition and lobbying the US government to intervene in Syria. The Journal was forced to post a clarification that “in addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O’Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition.”

O’Bagy wrote in an email this Wednesday morning: “I was just fired from ISW and I’m no longer legally allowed to discuss my employment with them or affiliate it any way.”

In an interview conducted before O’Bagy was fired from ISW, she rejected claims that her research was compromised by her affiliation to the advocacy group, the Syrian Emergency Task Force.

“My research is completely separate” she said. “Every journalist and every researcher goes into the conflict with their own background and their own ideas.”

The Syrian Emergency Task Force didn’t respond to telephone and email requests for comment.

Rosie Gray contributed to this report.

_______________________________________________________________________

truth fake

Related articles

TruthTodayA

| Criminal Hypocrisy of Kerry: From dove to hawk!

Posted on by
5

“Criminal Hypocrisy”: Vietnam John Kerry -vs- Syria John Kerry ~ Christopher Matar, YouTube Video.

42 years after Vietnam testimony, Kerry returns to Congress with Syria plea. In 1971, a young Naval lieutenant named John Kerry pleaded with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to stop a war. Four decades later, Kerry will return to that same committee table, this time as Secretary of State, to advocate for U.S. military action in Syria.

 August 09, 2013

 ________________________________________________________________________

42 years after Vietnam testimony, Kerry returns to Congress with Syria plea ~ , MSNBC.

John Kerry, 27, testifies about the war in Vietnam before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, April 22, 1971. (Photo by Henry Griffin/AP)

John Kerry, 27, testifies about the war in Vietnam before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in Washington, April 22, 1971. (Photo by Henry Griffin/AP)

In 1971, a young Naval lieutenant named John Kerry pleaded with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to stop a war. Four decades later, Kerry will return to that same committee table, this time as Secretary of State, to advocate for U.S. military action in Syria.

Kerry will be joined Tuesday by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel–the two men both military veterans who served for years together on the senate panel that will hold hearings on Syria and President Obama’s quest for Congressional approval of military action there. The chairman of the joint chiefs, Gen. Martin Dempsey will also testify. Kerry will testify before the House Foreign Affairs committee Wednesday.

Tuesday’s testimony will be a significant marker in a career that began for Kerry in that same Senate room 42 years ago. Kerry became a national figure at age 27 when he testified in uniform before the committee. He seemed to captured the national sentiment of a country growing weary with the Vietnam War when he asked senators: “How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?” Kerry was awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts for his service.

Recalling those formative experiences in Vietnam, a much older Kerry noted in remarks last week that his country is tired of war. Yet he has quickly emerged an outspoken advocate of a hard-line approach against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The U.S. government has said it has evidence that indisputably shows the Assad regime ordered chemical attacks against civilians in a Damascus suburb on Aug. 21, killing more than 1,400, including hundreds of children.

During his confirmation hearing in January, Kerry commented on how the world had changed from the Vietnam War era to the current fight against terrorism.

“Nearly 42 years ago, Chairman Fulbright first gave me the opportunity to testify before this committee during a difficult and divided time for our country,” Kerry said. “Today I can’t help but recognize that the world itself then was in many ways simpler, divided as it was along bi-polar, Cold War antagonism. Today’s world is more complicated than anything we have experienced.”

In two speeches last week, Kerry called the chemical attack “a moral obscenity,” and “a crime against humanity.” He told a war-weary nation, and a skeptical world arena, that “fatigue does not absolve us of our responsibility.”

Then on Saturday, Obama said he would seek congressional approval before launching a military campaign in Syria that he described as limited in scope and duration.

Asked what direction the president would take if Congress fails to authorize military action, Kerry said on NBC’s Meet the Press Sunday, “I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment.”

“The challenge of Iran, the challenges of the region, the challenge of standing up for and standing beside our ally, Israel, helping to shore up Jordan—all of these things are very, very powerful interests and I believe Congress will pass it.”

The White House sent Congress a draft resolution and officials quickly called for an unclassified meeting with members of Congress as part of a “flood the zone,” strategy to gain support. But Democratic Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that lawmakers would amend the administration’s draft proposal for the action, saying that it is currently too broad in scope.

Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina—both outspoken advocates for tougher military measures against Syria—met with Obama at the White House over Labor Day. The two senators have faulted Obama’s proposal as too little, too late, and have urged him to intervene further on the side of the rebels.

“We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president’s stated goal of Assad’s removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests,” McCain and Graham said in a joint statement.

If Obama is able to gain their support, the resolution to authorize military action in Syria would stand a greater chance of passage in the Senate.

Kerry worked much of Labor Day to persuade fellow Democrats to vote with the president. In a Monday conference call, Kerry reportedly told House Democrats that they face a “Munich moment” as they weigh whether to approve striking Syria, two sources with knowledge of the call told NBC News.

Kerry was referencing the 1938 Munich Pact which ceded control of part of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany—a moment that history has harshly judged as an appeasement of Adolf Hitler that strengthened him ahead of World War II.

_______________________________________________________________________

Wrongfoot2

Related articles

HypocrisyPainful

| Lies at the Heart of the Obama/Kerry Push for War—and Why They’ve Backfired!

Posted on by
3

The Lies at the Heart of the Obama/Kerry Push for War—and Why They’ve Backfired ~ Greg Mitchell, The Nation.


Protesters, holding up their red painted hands, stand behind Secretary of State John Kerry on Capitol Hill in Washington, September 4, 2013. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

President Obama held a press conference in St. Petersburg this morning—see my full account here—which turned into another dismal, at times half-hearted, performance in spinning the need for an attack on Syria. Richard Wolffe of MSNBC quickly labeled it “embarrassing.” The problem for the president remains: he and his secretary of state, John Kerry, have relied on half-truths and, let’s say it, lies, in promoting the war—and as one reporter pointed out at the presser, they actually lose the backing of the public and the Congress the more they say.

That’s because, with the belated help of some in the media, it is all too easy to see through the spin.

Let us count just some of the (un)truths and lies. We won’t even get into Kerry’s repeated claim that he opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the truth is completely the opposite (he came to oppose it later).

1) Yesterday I unpacked the claims of precisely 1,429 killed in the chemical attack, noting that all other sources put it much lower—in some cases at only one-fourth that number. I won’t repeat what I wrote but note that the White House still has given no source for this. At the presser today, Obama mentioned 1,400 “gassed”—not “killed.” I presume just a slip but wish a reporter had followed up.

2) Kerry and backers in Congress—notably Senator John McCain—have claimed for the past week that the rebels in Syria are actually, in the main, “moderate” (not jihadists) and their ranks are growing daily. Yesterday The New York Times carried a front-piece disputing this along with a photo of an execution in progress carried out by those “moderate” rebels. They also had a video of it picked up widely by cable news.

Bad enough but then today we learn that a prime source for the “moderate” claim cited by Kerry and McCain—a recent Wall Street Journal piece—was written by a woman who has been paidby…the Syrian rebels. Reuters has also produced a key piece disputing the “moderate” claim.

3) Obama and Kerry have both declared over and over that his would be a very limited strike. Multiple reports at top news outlets now reveal that the target list is actually expanding and jets as well as missiles will be used. Obama call this “inaccurate” at the presser today but he has been under pressure from hawks to step up the destruction to aid the rebels in the fight.

Also at the presser, Obama denied reports that skeptical Congress members are coming out of intel briefings more, not less, skeptical about an attack. Reporters immediately disputed this.

4) Finally (for now) there’s this: Obama, Kerry and their supporters in Congress and on TV have argued that Assad has “killed 100,000” (maybe more) of his own people. This is rarely corrected by the media or in interviews. The truth is bad enough, surely, but it’s not 100,000. But that figure, so many others others, is being used as spin to induce people to back the war against Syria.

The facts, from more than one group but this leading one here, is that at least 40,000 of that total is Assad forces or militias supporting him. Militia fighting him—and non-combatants (killed by both sides)—make up the rest. In fact, not a single report or count, even by the Assad opponents and groups friendly to him, endorse the Assad-killed-100,000 figure.

But don’t let the facts get in the way of the first airstrike. Assad is bad enough, but the propaganda—from Kerry to certain MSNBC folks—just shows the weakness in their case.

 Take Action: Demand Your Reps Vote No on Military Intervention in Syria

_________________________________________________________________________

Wrongfoot2

Related articles

Executioner1

| What Happened to the “Global War on Terrorism”? The US is “Fighting for Al Qaeda” in Syria.

Posted on by
5

What Happened to the “Global War on Terrorism”? The U.S. is “Fighting for Al Qaeda” in Syria. ~  Prof Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research.

Americans have been repeatedly told that Al Qaeda under the helm of the late Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

Formulated in the wake of the tragic events of september 11, 2001, the U.S. and its allies launched a “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) directed against the numerous “jihadist” Al Qaeda affiliated terror formations in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia and South East Asia. The first stage of the “Global War on Terrorism” was the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.

In the wake of 9/11, the” Global War on Terrorism” served to obfuscate the real economic and strategic objectives behind the US-led wars in the Middle East and Central Asia.

The Patriot legislation was implemented. The national security doctrine stated unequivocally that the American Homeland was to be protected against “Islamic terrorists”.

For the last 13 years, war on terrorism rhetoric has permeated political discourse at all levels of government. Al Qaeda related threats and occurrences are explained –by politicians, the corporate media, Hollywood and the Washington think tanks– under a single blanket “bad guys” heading, in which Al Qaeda (“the outside enemy of America”) is casually and repeatedly pinpointed as “the cause” of numerous terror events around the World.

But somehow, in the last few months, this “Al Qaeda paradigm” has shifted. The American public has become increasingly skeptical regarding the validity of the “Global War on Terrorism”

In recent months, with the unfolding events in Syria, something rather unusual has occurred, which has had a profound impact on the public’s perception and understanding of Obama’s “Global War on Terrorism”.

The US government is actively and openly supporting Syria’s Al Nusrah, the main fighting force affiliated to al Qaeda, largely composed of foreign mercenaries.

Tax dollars are relentlessly channeled to the “rebels”. In turn, Secretary of State John Kerry meets with rebel commanders who oversee the Al Qaeda affiliated entity.

Is this part of a “new normal”: the unity of opposites whereby “terrorism” and “counter-terrorism” are merged into a single foreign policy focus?

Is it “politically correct” for a US Senator to mingle with leaders of a terrorist organization, while at the same time paying lip service to the “Global War on Terrorism”?

While this may be “business as usual” for the US Secretary of State, American servicemen and women are now “refusing to fight” a war in favor of terrorism under the emblem of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

Channeling money and weapons to Al Qaeda in Syria is carried out “in the open”, via the US State Department and the Pentagon rather than in the context of a covert CIA operation.

John McCain enters Syria illegally and poses for photo ops with Al Qaeda leaders.

Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C) poses with infamous kidnapper in Syria, Mohamed Nour (seen with his hand on his chest and holding a camera)

Hawkish US Senator John McCain (C) poses with infamous kidnapper in Syria, Mohamed Nour (seen with his hand on his chest and holding a camera)

The Movement within the US Armed Forces

Needless to say, this mingling of politicians and terrorists strikes at the very foundations of the “Global War on Terrorism”.

Despite the tide of media disinformation, people are increasingly aware that these US sponsored rebels are not “revolutionaries” and that US military aid is being channeled to the terror brigades.

A spontaneous movement on social media networks has emerged involving active members of the armed forces.

“I will not fight for al Qaeda”.

“Obama, I will not fight for your al Qaeda rebels in Syria.”

“Our government tells us that we are fighting a war on terrorism.” That is what is taught to new recruits in the Armed Forces. “We’re spreading democracy by combating terrorism”.

Yet in recent months, millions of Americans have become aware of the fact that the Obama administration is lying.

Supporting the Terrorists

Barack Obama and John Kerry are not fighting terrorism. Quite the opposite: They are actively supporting Al Qaeda terrorists in Syria, who are responsible for the most despicable crimes, killings and atrocities directed against the civilian population.

These crimes have been amply documented. Beheadings, executions of children. The most gruesome massacres.

The Al Nusrah brigades have performed thousands of executions. A recently released video reveals how two young boys are executed following the reading of a death sentence.”In the video can be seen a terrorist reading death sentence to the boys, gunfire is heard, boys fall dead.”

Screenshot YouTube

 

 

Are these the people who are being supported by the US government?

The terrorists are directly recruited by the Western military alliance. They are trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar in liaison with the US and NATO.

These are the rebels who, according to CNN, have also been trained by Western special forces in the use of chemical weapons. And they have used chemical weapons against innocent Syrian civilians.

US servicemen and women are adamant. “I did not join the army to fight for al Qaeda.”

We were recruited to wage a “Global War on Terrorism” and now our government is collaborating with Al Qaeda.

Congressman Dennis Kucinich said “striking Syria would make the U.S. Military ‘Al-Qaeda’s Air Force’”.

The concept which is spreading across the land is that the Obama administration is supporting Al Qaeda.

It’s a bipartisan consensus: the Republican leadership in the US Congress and the Senate have endorsed support and financial aid to the al Nusrah brigades in Syria.

In the eyes of public opinion, the Global War on Terrorism has, so to speak, fallen flat.

Who is Supporting Whom? Who is Waging a War of Aggression?

The spontaneous movement in the armed forces is based on the notion that the “US government is supporting al Qaeda”.

The corporate media has failed to reveal the nature of the longstanding relationship between Al Qaeda and the US government, which goes back to the Soviet-Afghan war.

Al Qaeda –the “outside enemy of America” as well as the alleged architect of the 9/11 attacks– is a creation of the CIA. Al Qaeda and its affiliates are often referred to as “intelligence assets”

From the outset of the Soviet-Afghan war in the early 1980s, the US intelligence apparatus has supported the formation of “Islamic brigades”.

Propaganda purports to erase the history of Al Qaeda, drown the truth and “kill the evidence” on how this “outside enemy” was fabricated and transformed into “Enemy Number One”.

The Global War on Terrorism is not geared towards curbing the “Islamic jihad”. The significant development of “radical Islam” in the wake of the Cold War was consistent with Washington’s hidden agenda. The latter consists in sustaining rather than combating international terrorism, with a view to creating factional divisions within countries and destabilizing national societies.

The numerous al Qaeda affiliated entities are routinely used in CIA covert operations. They are recruited, trained and indoctrinated under the supervision of the CIA and its intelligence counterparts in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar and Israel. Unknown to the American public, the US has spread the teachings of the “Islamic jihad” in textbooks “Made in America”, developed at the University of Nebraska

Al Qaeda is an intelligence asset which serves the interests of the US administration.

With regard to Syria, the US government is not “supporting Al Qaeda” Quite the opposite, the Al Qaeda mercenaries in Syria, recruited and trained in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are “supporting the US government”. They are being used by the US military intelligence apparatus. They are paid killers.

Their actions are implemented as part of a military agenda; they are the foot-soldiers of the Western military alliance. The atrocities committed by the terrorists are the direct result of paramilitary training and indoctrination. The US government is behind this process. Obama is responsible for the crimes committed by the “rebels” against the Syrian people.

Concluding Remarks

We are at an important crossroads. The “Global War on Terrorism” constitutes the cornerstone of war propaganda. Yet at the same time the lies which uphold the GWOT are no longer credible and the thrust and effectiveness of the propaganda campaign are threatened.

No one can reasonably believe in a “war on terrorism” which consists in channeling money and weapons to the terrorists. Its a non sequitur.

“Support to terrorists”, portrayed as “revolutionaries” cannot be heralded as part of a foreign policy agenda which officially consists in “going after the terrorists”.

But Obama desperately needs to hold on to the “Global war on Terrorism”. It’s the cornerstone of US military doctrine. It’s a worldwide crusade.

Without the “Global War on Terrorism”, the Obama administration does not have a leg to stand on: its military doctrine collapses like a deck of cards.

Undermining the credibility of the “Global War on Terrorism” is a powerful instrument of counter-propaganda.

We call on people across the land: Mobilize against Obama’s war.

The war on Syria is illegal and criminal.

The President and Commander in Chief’s decision to support Al Qaeda in Syria is in violation of international law and US anti terrorism legislation .

US and coalition troops have a moral and legal obligation to refuse to fight in Obama’s “humanitarian war” on Syria, which consists in supporting Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists.

The President and Commander in Chief has blatantly violated all tenets of domestic and international law. So that making an oath to “obey orders from the President” is tantamount to violating rather than defending the US Constitution.

“The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.” (Mosqueda, US troops have “A Duty To Disobey all Unlawful orders”.http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MOS303A.html )

“Refusing to fight” an illegal war implies a rejection of the legitimacy of the Commander in Chief. It denies the Obama administration the authority to conduct an illegal and criminal war on behalf of the American people.

And the American people must support the US servicemen and women who refuse to fight in an illegal war.

Obama is a war criminal. He is supporting terrorists, who are his paid killers. Amply documented Syria’s rebels have been trained in the use of chemical weapons and they have used chemical weapons against innocent civilians.

The Global War on Terrorism is a fabrication and a lie.

War is an illegal undertaking.

According to Nuremberg jurisprudence, the ultimate war crime consists in starting a war. Obama and his European counterparts including David Cameron and Francois Hollande are responsible for the supreme crime: “the crime against peace.” This war is illegal irrespective of a decision of the UN Security Council to intervene in the internal affairs of a sovereign state:

“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations… Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.” UN Charter – 1: Purposes and Principles

 

 ________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Related articles

| 10-7: US Senate committee passes resolution to strike Syria!

Posted on by
2

Senate committee passes resolution backing strikes in Syria ~ Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved a resolution Wednesday granting President Obama limited authority to conduct military strikes on Syria, after nearly an hour of wrestling over the details of war planning and trying to make sure the conflict doesn’t spiral out of control.

The measure squeaked through on a bipartisan 10-7 vote that helps build momentum for Mr. Obama, though bigger hurdles lie ahead with a full Senate vote and similar action in the House, where one lawmaker said there are not currently enough votes to act.

SEE ALSO: Senate-crafted Syria resolution riddled with loopholes for Obama

Three Republicans joined seven Democrats in backing the measure, while two Democrats opposed it along with five other Republicans, signaling how deeply the questions split both parties.

Senators will bring the resolution to the Senate floor next week.

The resolution still prohibits “combat troops” from being deployed, but analysts said that still leaves open room for other American troops to be used in Syria, either as special forces or search and rescue missions.

An effort by Sen. Tom Udall, New Mexico Democrat, to specifically limit attacks to naval or air power outside Syria was defeated overwhelmingly.

“We start down this road, we are going to be running the campaign from here, and as smart as we are, I don’t think we are that smart,” said Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican and former Navy pilot, who led opposition to the Udall amendment.

Still, senators said they wanted there to be no mixed signals and said they don’t want to see American troops committed to the fight in Syria.

SEE ALSO: Obama makes fiery case for action in Syria

Across the Capitol, top administration officials were making their case for strikes to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, where they faced an even broader range of opinions, from those who wanted a deeper U.S. involvement to those skeptical that any action will work.

Rep. Steve Stockman, who is on the committee but was traveling oversees in the Middle East, released a statement saying that as of now, the administration still lacks the votes to win approval in the House, and saying he expects the lobbying to grow more intense over the next week.

“As it stands currently, President Obama does not have the votes to approve military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad,” he said.

_________________________________________________________________________

crosshairs2_op_800x483

| First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield!’

Posted on by
5

First Syria rebels armed and trained by CIA ‘on way to battlefield’ ~ Raf Sanchez in Washington, The Telegraph.

The first cell of Syrian rebels trained and armed by the CIA is making its way to the battlefield, President Barack Obama has reportedly told senators.

The US announced in June that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.

The US announced in June that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.  Photo: JIM WATSON/AFP

During a meeting at the White House, the president assured Senator John McCain that after months of delay the US was meeting its commitment to back moderate elements of the opposition.

Mr Obama said that a 50-man cell, believed to have been trained by US special forces in Jordan, was making its way across the border into Syria, according to the New York Times.

The deployment of the rebel unit seems to be the first tangible measure of support since Mr Obama announced in June that the US would begin providing the opposition with small arms.

Congressional opposition delayed the plan for several weeks and rebel commanders publicly complained the US was still doing nothing to match the Russian-made firepower of the Assad regime.

Mr McCain has been a chief critic of the White House’s reluctance to become involved in Syria and has long demanded that Mr Obama provide the rebels with arms needed to overthrow the regime.

He and Senator Lindsey Graham, a fellow Republican foreign policy hawk, emerged from the Oval Office meeting on Monday cautiously optimistic that Mr Obama would step up support for the rebels.

“There seems to be emerging from this administration a pretty solid plan to upgrade the opposition,” Mr Graham said.

He added that he hoped the opposition would be given “a chance to speak directly to the American people” to counter US fears that they were dominated by al-Qaeda sympathisers.

“They’re not trying to replace one dictator, Assad, who has been brutal… to only have al-Qaeda run Syria,” Mr Graham said.

The US announced in June, following the first allegations the Assad regime had used chemical weapons, that it would send light arms to the rebels but refused to provide anti-aircraft missiles and other heavy weapons.

American concerns were born partly out of the experience of Afghanistan in the 1980s, when CIA weapons given to the anti-Russian mujahideen were later used by the Taliban.

________________________________________________________________________

CrimeBlood 

Related articles

warcrimA

| Toppling Morsi called coup by US senators asking for Egypt dialogue!

Posted on by
1

US senators call for Egypt dialogue ~ Al Jazeera.

On trip to Cairo, two senior lawmakers urge timetable for elections and ask Morsi’s supporters to renounce violence.

McCain and Graham also met on Tuesday with Mohamed ElBaradei, the vice president for foreign affairs [Reuters]
Two US senators have met Egypt’s army chief and urged the country’s divided political factions to renounce violence and agree to a national dialogue.

Lindsey Graham and John McCain, both Republican senators, travelled to Cairo at the request of US President Barack Obama.

At a press conference on Tuesday night, the two asked Egypt’s interim government to set forth a “clear timetable” for holding new elections and finalising a new constitution.

They also urged the government to reconcile with the Muslim Brotherhood and its political allies, who have staged weeks of protests since former president Mohamed Morsi was deposed by the army on July 3.

“You have to sit down and talk to each other, even though you may not like the people at the other side of the table,” Graham said.

Both senators described the toppling of Morsi as a coup, a term which Obama himself has avoided – because it would require a suspension of US military aid to Egypt.

“It was a transition of power not by the ballot box,” Graham said. “The people who were elected are now in jail.”

‘Political polarisation’

The state news agency MENA said little about the senators’ meeting with General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, the army chief, only that the two sides exchanged views on political developments and discussed efforts to end “the state of political polarisation”.

Army chief of staff Lieutenant General Sedki Sobhi and US ambassador Anne Patterson also attended the meeting. The senators also met separately with interim vice president Mohamed ElBaradei and prime minister Hazem el-Beblawy.

Thousands of Morsi’s supporters remain camped out at two protest sites in Cairo, which the government has pledged to break up. Almost 300 people have been killed in political violence since he was toppled, including 80 shot dead by security forces in a single incident on July 27.

A diplomatic push led by the envoys from the United States, the European Union, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates has so far helped to hold off further bloodshed between Morsi’s backers and the security forces but not achieved a breakthrough.

_________________________________________________________________________

RestoreMorsi1

Related articles

Mubarakism

| More Hubris? What Susan Rice’s White House Promotion Means!

Posted on by
3

What Susan Rice’s White House Promotion Means ~ Jeffrey Goldberg, Bloomberg View.

 

Revenge is a dish best served cold. Except when it’s best served hot.

Just a few months ago, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and now President Barack Obama’s choice to be the next national security adviser, saw her main chance to become secretary of state dissipate before her eyes, as Senate Republicans (withJohn McCain and Lindsey Graham in the lead) excoriated her for, as they saw it, misleading the public about the attacks on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, last year. (My thoughts about the attacks on Rice can be found here.)

Jeffrey Goldberg

About Jeffrey Goldberg»

Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for the Atlantic, is the author of “Prisoners: A Story of Friendship … MORE

FOLLOW ON TWITTER

Rice was forced to withdraw her name, and SenatorJohn Kerry was awarded the job. Now Rice will be, in effect, Kerry’s supervisor. McCain and Graham, by turning Rice into the scapegoat of the Benghazi debacle, have inadvertently allowed the president to bring her into the innermost ring of power, in a role that requires no Senate confirmation.

In the highly centralized White House foreign-policy and national-security operation (critics would call it overcentralized, and they have a point) the secretary of state, even one of Kerry’s stature, does comparatively little to set the administration’s overarching policy. Kerry seems to spend most of his waking hours pursuing a semi-quixotic Middle East peace plan. It will be Rice’s job to interpret the president’s broadest wishes and put them into place across several government departments.

Payback

Her influence will be especially pronounced, I think, because she is part of Obama’s original foreign-policy team — in what could have been a near-suicidal career move, Rice, a former official in President Bill Clinton’s administration, signed on to Obama’s campaign when his victory didn’t seem at all assured.

In the period when the Senate’s scapegoating of Rice was at its peak, Obama seemed frustrated by the manner in which she was treated. Her appointment today is partly payback for her loyalty, and a thumb in the eyes of her Senate critics. It is also a sign that the president and Rice are in sync on a broad set of issues, and here is where it gets interesting.

Rice is known as a liberal interventionist (as is the woman being named to replace her at the UN, the writer and former National Security Council staffer Samantha Power), but advocates of greater American involvement in the Syrian civil war, the most acute problem Rice will face in her new position, will be disappointed to learn that she isn’t particularly optimistic about the effect that any U.S. action — such as imposing a no-fly zone — will have on the war’s outcome.

Rice, like the president, seems focused on the possibility that the downfall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime could mean a victory for al-Qaeda-like groups that represent some of the strongest elements of the Syrian opposition. The Obama administration is desperately seeking to avoid the creation of terrorist havens in Syria, because they would represent a direct national-security threat to the U.S. and would require an armed American response.

The American experience in Libya — not the Benghazi attack, which was searing in its own way — has also chastened Obama’s national-security team: The intervention on behalf of rebels fighting the late, unlamented dictator Muammar Qaddafi, may very well have saved thousands of innocent lives, but the fallout from Qaddafi’s overthrow (the rise of al-Qaeda-like groups, the spread of Libyan weapons across Africa, the general misery and instability that now afflicts the country) has taught Obama’s advisers, Rice included, important lessons about the unpredictability of intervention. Politically, the administration has seen no upside to the Libyan intervention — it was criticized for recklessness by both Democrats and Republicans — and in a very political White House, these domestic considerations often take precedence.

Formative Experience

That said, Rice is, by disposition and ideology, a strong advocate of American power, and her formative experience in government came when she watched, impotently, as hundreds of thousands of people were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The Clinton administration had the power to intervene but didn’t. Rice is committed to preventing other Rwandas, but notably, I’m told, she doesn’t see what is happening in Syria as the equivalent. At least not yet.

Rice has been known as a tough, sometimes brusque, operator. She suffered, post-Benghazi, because she had previously made little effort to befriend senators and members of the news media, among others. But lately, perhaps in preparation for a job she suspected was coming her way, she has become more, well, diplomatic. Not diplomatic enough for some: One of the darkly humorous moments of the Benghazi witch hunt came when some Republicans complained to me that Rice had manhandled the Russian delegation to the UN. This may have been the first time since the Bolshevik Revolution that Republicans were worried about the feelings of senior Russian officials.

I suspect that McCain and Graham will come, over time, to appreciate Rice’s toughness. I’m not sure I can say the same for the trio of aging white male ex-senators — Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel and Kerry — who believe themselves to be at the core of the national-security operation. Susan Rice is not Condoleezza Rice, who was steamrolled on more than one occasion by Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, when she served as President George W. Bush’s national security adviser. Susan Rice won’t be easily outmaneuvered.

______________________________________________________________________

hubris11

Related articles

US except1A

| Hart of the Matter: Obama’s Hagel test!

Posted on by
3

Obama’s Hagel test ~ Alan Hart.

____________________________________________________________________

I’ll get to what it is about Hagel’s record that troubles and even frightens the Zionist lobby in a moment, but first can we, please, get the terminology right.

____________________________________________________________________

 

By all accounts President Obama wants to nominate Chuck Hagel, the former two-term Republican senator from Nebraska to replace Leon Panetta at the Pentagon as Secretary of Defense, but a coalition led by the Zionist lobby is mounting a smear campaign against Hagel. Why? It hopes to persuade Obama that he would be foolish to nominate Hagel because he is unlikely to be confirmed by a Senate in which many members are content to do Zionism’s bidding in order to protect their own backs.

I’ll get to what it is about Hagel’s record that troubles and even frightens the Zionist lobby in a moment, but first can we, please, get the terminology right. Almost everybody who speaks and writes about the Israel-Palestine conflict does not get it right. And that creates an obstacle to understanding.

The monster that controls Congress and ties any president’s hands on policy for dealing with Israel-Palestine is not the “Jewish lobby” and not the “Israel lobby.”

It is wrong to describe it as the Jewish lobby for two reasons.

One is that such a description implies that it represents and speaks for all Jews. It most certainly does not.

The other is that it’s not only Jews who make up the lobby. Another key element of it is composed of the “Bring on Armageddon” Christian fundamentalists.

It is wrong to describe it as the Israel lobby because such a description implies that it represents and speaks for all of Israel’s Jews and the nearly one quarter of its citizens who are Arabs. It most certainly does not.

The most accurate long description of the Zionist lobby would be that it is composed of those of all faiths and none who give and demand unconditional support for the Zionist (not Jewish) state of Israel right or wrong. In my view the most practical short form of that is Zionist lobby. (Some call it the “Likud lobby”. That was a case for doing so in the past, but today there are emerging fascist forces in Israel even further to the right than Likud, and the Zionist lobby speaks for them, too).

Even the term “pro-Israel” is an obstacle to understanding. When it is used without qualification, as it almost always is, it can mean either pro an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, or pro an Israel in occupation of the West Bank (in defiance of international law) and laying siege to the Gaza Strip. Politicians who declare themselves to be “pro-Israel” should be asked which Israel they are pro.

So what is it about Hagel’s views that put him today at the temporary top of the Zionist lobby’s verbal hit-list?

First and foremost is his often stated view that the duty of the President and Congress is to put America’s own best interests first and not allow them to become subservient to Israel’s interests. He is firmly on the record with the statement, “I am an American senator, not an Israeli senator.”

In 2007 he informed the Arab American Institute that he had dropped his bid for the presidency because a pro-Israel donor had told him that if he wanted funding his support for Israel should be “automatic”.

A year later in a book by Aaron David Miller he was correctly quoted as saying “The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people.” That enraged and still enrages the Zionist lobby and all who do its bidding, including Arizona senator John McCain who, thank goodness, didn’t make it to the White House when he ran against Obama.

McCain actually said: “I know of no Jewish lobby. I know there is strong support for Israel but I know of no Jewish lobby. I hope he (Hagel) will identify who that is.”

McCain wasn’t challenging Hagel’s imprecise terminology. He was asserting that there is no lobby organized by some Jewish Americans who give and demand unconditional support for all of Greater Israel’s policies and actions.

If Hagel is nominated for the post of Secretary of Defense, I think he would be well advised to respond to McCain’s challenge during his confirmation hearing. And I would have him do it with something like these words:

I was in error when I said the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people. That was an imprecise use of language on my part. I should have said the Zionist lobby intimidates a lot of people… Are you really saying, Senator McCain, that you know of no Zionist lobby which intimidates very many members of Congress and our presidents?

I also have a question for those including some here today who are seeking to demonize me. What is so objectionable about my stated view that the duty of the President and Congress is to put America’s own best interests first and not allow them to become subservient to Israel’s interests?

Hagel’s other past sins include his call for the U.S. to engage with Hamas and his stated view that there is no military solution to Iran’s nuclear problem. (I can almost hear America’s military chiefs saying behind closed doors, “That’s the man we want and need as our political master.”)

In its efforts to demonize Hagel the Zionist lobby and its associates are not having things all their own away.

Richard Armitage, a former deputy secretary of state in the Republican administration of George “Dubya” Bush, said he didn’t think the attacks on Hagel were fair. He went on:  “I’ve known him quite closely for the last 15 years and I’ve never heard him utter any anti-Semitic statement. If he used the term ‘Jewish lobby,’ that’s a poor choice of words and I’m sure he’ll speak for himself on that… I happen to know the guy. He’s not owned by anybody, he happens to think for himself, and this apparently causes some fear in some cases. He’s got an unerring bullshit sensor, he’s got real stones (I presume that means balls in English-English) and he doesn’t mind telling you what his opinion is, which will stand him in very good stead in the Pentagon if the president nominates him.”

Another who has come to Hagel’s defense is Brent Scowcroft, the former air force general and Republican national security adviser. He said: “Senator Hagel is one of the most well-respected and thoughtful voices on both foreign and domestic policy. At an uncertain time in America – with a significant debt burden, a polarized Congress, and a host of challenges facing the international community, I am confident Senator Hagel will provide a vibrant, no-nonsense voice of logic and leadership to the United States.”

Obama’s decision, expected very soon, about whether or not to nominate Hagel will give us the first significant indication since his re-election of whether or not he is going to continue to dance to Zionism’s tune or, as Hagel might put it, continue to be intimidated by its lobby.

____________________________________________________________________

US Hijacked1

Related articles

wag the dog2

isr terr1