| Conman-in-Chief: Top 45 Lies in Obama’s Speech at the UN!

Top 45 Lies in Obama’s Speech at the U.N. ~

davidswanson, War Is A Crime .org.

 

1. President Obama’s opening lines at the U.N. on Tuesday looked down on people who would think to settle disputes with war. Obama was disingenuously avoiding the fact that earlier this month he sought to drop missiles into a country to “send a message” but was blocked by the U.S. Congress, the U.N., the nations of the world, and popular opposition — after which Obama arrived at diplomacy as a last resort.

2. “It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking.” Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in “our thinking.” The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.

3. “[P]eople are being lifted out of poverty,” Obama said, crediting actions by himself and others in response to the economic crash of five years ago. But downward global trends in poverty are steady and long pre-date Obama’s entry into politics. And such a trend does not exist in the U.S.

4. “Together, we have also worked to end a decade of war,” Obama said. In reality, Obama pushed Iraq hard to allow that occupation to continue, and was rejected just as Congress rejected his missiles-for-Syria proposal. Obama expanded the war on Afghanistan. Obama expanded, after essentially creating, drone wars. Obama has increased global U.S. troop presence, global U.S. weapons sales, and the size of the world’s largest military. He’s put “special” forces into many countries, waged a war on Libya, and pushed for an attack on Syria. How does all of this “end a decade of war”? And how did his predecessor get a decade in office anyway?

5. “Next year, an international coalition will end its war in Afghanistan, having achieved its mission of dismantling the core of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9/11.” In reality, Bruce Riedel, who coordinated a review of Afghanistan policy for President Obama said, “The pressure we’ve put on [jihadist forces] in the past year has also drawn them together, meaning that the network of alliances is growing stronger not weaker.” (New York Times, May 9, 2010.)

6. “We have limited the use of drones.” Bush drone strikes in Pakistan: 51. Obama drone strikes in Pakistan: 323.

7. “… so they target only those who pose a continuing, imminent threat to the United States where capture is not feasible.” On June 7, 2013, Yemeni tribal leader Saleh Bin Fareed told Democracy Now that Anwar al Awlaki could have been turned over and put on trial, but “they never asked us.” In numerous other cases it is evident that drone strike victims could have been arrested if that avenue had ever been attempted. A memorable example was the November 2011 drone killing in Pakistan of 16-year-old Tariq Aziz, days after he’d attended an anti-drone meeting in the capital, where he might easily have been arrested — had he been charged with some crime. This weeks drone victims, like all the others, had never been indicted or their arrest sought.

8. “… and there is a near certainty of no civilian casualties.” There are hundreds of confirmed civilian dead from U.S. drones, something the Obama administration seems inclined to keep as quiet as possible.

9. “And the potential spread of weapons of mass destruction casts a shadow over the pursuit of peace.” In reality, President Obama is not pursuing peace or the control of such weapons or their reduction and elimination in all countries, only particular countries. And the United States remains the top possessor of weapons of mass destruction and the top supplier of weapons to the world.

10. “[In Syria, P]eaceful protests against an authoritarian regime were met with repression and slaughter. … America and others have worked to bolster the moderate opposition.” In fact, the United States has armed a violent opposition intent on waging war and heavily influenced if not dominated by foreign fighters and fanatics.

11. “[T]he regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed more than 1,000 people, including hundreds of children.” Maybe, but where’s the evidence? Even Colin Powell brought (faked) evidence.

12. “How should we respond to conflicts in the Middle East?” This suggests that the United States isn’t causingconflicts in the Middle East or aggravating them prior to altering its position and “responding.” In fact, arming and supporting brutal governments in Bahrain, Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Israel, etc., is behavior that could do a great deal of good simply by ceasing.

13. “How do we address the choice of standing callously by while children are subjected to nerve gas, or embroiling ourselves in someone else’s civil war?” That isn’t a complete list of choices, as Obama discovered when Russia called Kerry’s bluff and diplomacy became a choice, just as disarmament and de-escalation and pressure for a ceasefire are choices. Telling Saudi Arabia “Stop arming the war in Syria or no more cluster bombs for you,” is a choice.

14. “What is the role of force in resolving disputes that threaten the stability of the region and undermine all basic standards of civilized conduct?” Force doesn’t have a role in civilized conduct, the most basic standard of which is relations without the use of force.

15. “[T]he international community must enforce the ban on chemical weapons.” Except against Israel or the United States.

16. “… and Iranians poisoned in the many tens of thousands.” This was good of Obama to recognize Iran’s suffering, but it would have been better of him to recall where Iraq acquired some of its weapons of mass destruction.

17. “It is an insult to human reason — and to the legitimacy of this institution — to suggest that anyone other than the regime carried out this attack.” Really? In the absence of evidence, skepticism isn’t reasonable for this Colin-Powelled institution, the same U.N. that was told Libya would be a rescue and watched it become a war aimed at illegally overthrowing a government? Trust us?

18. “Now, there must be a strong Security Council Resolution to verify that the Assad regime is keeping its commitments, and there must be consequences if they fail to do so.” Meaning war? What about the U.N.’s commitment to oppose war? What about the United States’ violation of its commitments to destroy the chemical weapons sitting in Kentucky and Colorado? “Consequences” for the U.S. too?

19. “I do not believe that military action — by those within Syria, or by external powers — can achieve a lasting peace.” Yet, the U.S. government is shipping weapons into that action.

20. “Nor do I believe that America or any nation should determine who will lead Syria … Nevertheless, a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy to lead a badly fractured country.” The Syrians should decide their own fate as long as they decide it the way I tell them to.

21. “[N]or does America have any interest in Syria beyond the well-being of its people, the stability of its neighbors, the elimination of chemical weapons, and ensuring it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists.” That’s funny. Elsewhere, you’ve said that weakening Syria would weaken Iran.

22. “[W]e will be providing an additional $340 million [for aid].” And vastly more for weapons.

23. “We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil…” That first remarkably honest sentence is only honest if you don’t think about what “free flow” means. The second sentence points to a real, if slow, trend but obscures the fact that only 40% of the oil the U.S. uses comes from the U.S., which doesn’t count much of the oil the U.S. military uses while “ensuring the free flow.” Nor is switching to small domestic supplies a long-term solution as switching to sustainable energy would be.

24. “But when it’s necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct action.” In Libya? Syria? Where does this make any sense, as U.S. actions generate rather than eliminate terrorism? Michael Boyle, part of Obama’s counter-terrorism group during his 2008 election campaign, says the use of drones is having “adverse strategic effects that have not been properly weighed against the tactical gains associated with killing terrorists … . The vast increase in the number of deaths of low-ranking operatives has deepened political resistance to the US programme in Pakistan, Yemen and other countries.” (The Guardian, January 7, 2013.) Why is Canada not obliged to bomb the world to “defend against terrorist attacks”?

ObLies1

25. “Just as we consider the use of chemical weapons in Syria to be a threat to our own national security …” We who? How? Congress just rejected this ludicrous claim. Ninety percent of this country laughed at it.

26. “[W]e reject the development of nuclear weapons that could trigger a nuclear arms race in the region, and undermine the global non-proliferation regime.” By Israel which has done this, or by Iran which all evidence suggests has not?

27. “We deeply believe it is in our interest to see a Middle East and North Africa that is peaceful and prosperous,” we just choose to work against that deep belief and to sell or give vast quantities of weapons to brutal dictatorships and monarchies.

28. “Iraq shows us that democracy cannot be imposed by force.” This could have been true had the U.S. attempted to impose democracy.

29. “Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.” Iran’s what?

30. “Arab-Israeli conflict.” That’s a misleading way of naming the conflict between the government of Israel and the people it ethnically cleanses, occupies, and abuses — including with chemical weapons.

31. “[A]n Iranian government that has … threatened our ally Israel with destruction.” It hasn’t. And piling up the lies about Iran will make Iran less eager to talk. Just watch.

32. “We are not seeking regime change.” That’s not what Kerry told Congress, in between telling Congress just the opposite. Also, see above in this same speech: “a leader who slaughtered his citizens and gassed children to death cannot regain the legitimacy….”

33. “We insist that the Iranian government meet its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and UN Security Council resolutions.” Among Iran, the U.S., and Israel, it’s Iran that seems to be complying.

34. “We are encouraged that President Rouhani received from the Iranian people a mandate to pursue a more moderate course.” More moderate than what? Threatening to destroy Israel and creating nukes?

35. “[T]heir own sovereign state.” There’s nowhere left for Palestine to create such a separate state.

36. “Israel’s security as a Jewish and democratic state.” Both, huh?

37. “When peaceful transitions began in Tunisia and Egypt … we chose to support those who called for change” … the minute everyone else was dead, exiled, or imprisoned.

38. “[T]rue democracy as requiring a respect for minority rights, the rule of law, freedom of speech and assembly, and a strong civil society. That remains our interest today.” Just not in our own country and certainly not in places that buy some of the biggest piles of our weapons.

39. “But we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent,” and if you don’t believe me, ask the Occupy movement — Happy Second Birthday, you guys!  I SHUT YOU DOWN, bwa ha ha ha ha.

40. “This includes efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Syria and Bahrain.” One liberated, one targeted, and one provided with support and weaponry and former U.S. police chiefs to lead the skull cracking.

41. “[A] vacuum of leadership that no other nation is ready to fill.” All criminal outrages should have a vacuum of leadership. “Who would bomb countries if we don’t do it?” is the wrong question.

42. “Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional — in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest, but for the interests of all.” When was that? The United States certainly comes in at far less than exceptional in terms of per-capita humanitarian aid.  Its humanitarian bombing that Obama has in mind, but it’s never benefitted humanity.

43. “And in Libya, when the Security Council provided a mandate to protect civilians, America joined a coalition that took action. Because of what we did there, countless lives were saved, and a tyrant could not kill his way back to power.” The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with “no mercy,” but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi’s threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those “who throw their weapons away.” Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide. What Gaddafi really threatened fits with his past behavior. There were other opportunities for massacres had he wished to commit massacres, in Zawiya, Misurata, or Ajdabiya. He did not do so. After extensive fighting in Misurata, a report by Human Rights Watch made clear that Gaddafi had targeted fighters, not civilians. Of 400,000 people in Misurata, 257 died in two months of fighting. Out of 949 wounded, less than 3 percent were women. More likely than genocide was defeat for the rebels, the same rebels who warned Western media of the looming genocide, the same rebels who the New York Times said “feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda” and who were “making vastly inflated claims of [Gaddafi’s] barbaric behavior.” The result of NATO joining the war was probably more killing, not less. It certainly extended a war that looked likely to end soon with a victory for Gaddafi.

44. “Libya would now be engulfed in civil war and bloodshed.” No, the war was ending, and Libya IS engulfed in bloodshed. In March 2011, the African Union had a plan for peace in Libya but was prevented by NATO, through the creation of a “no fly” zone and the initiation of bombing, to travel to Libya to discuss it. In April, the African Union was able to discuss its plan with Libyan President Muammar al-Gaddafi, and he expressed his agreement. NATO, which had obtained a U.N. authorization to protect Libyans alleged to be in danger but no authorization to continue bombing the country or to overthrow the government, continued bombing the country and overthrowing the government.

45. [S]overeignty cannot be a shield for tyrants to commit wanton murder.”  Says a man who reads through a list of potential murder victims on Tuesdays and ticks off the ones he wants murdered.

_________________________________________________________________________

UN grim reaper2

unfair

| Criminal Hypocrisy of Kerry: From dove to hawk!

“Criminal Hypocrisy”: Vietnam John Kerry -vs- Syria John Kerry ~ Christopher MatarYouTube 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

HypocrisyPainful

| TELL JOHN KERRY THE WORLD SAYS NO TO WAR ON SYRIA!

TELL JOHN KERRY THE WORLD SAYS NO TO WAR ON SYRIA ~ Stop the War CoalitionSyria protest at Foreign Office. 

=

EMERGENCY PROTEST

Monday 9 September, 8am
Foreign Office, Whitehall, London SW1

US secretary of state John Kerry is touring Europe trying to drum up support for a war on Syria. Opinion polls around the world show a US military is opposed by majorities in most countries. Two thirds of Americans say no to war. Close to 75% of people in Britain are opposed. This no doubt is why MPs in parliament voted last week to stop David Cameron taking this country into yet another war in the Middle East on the coat-tails of US foreign policy.

Barack Obama was isolated at the recent G20 meeting, at which only the French government was prepared to commit to a military attack on Syria. Latest polls show that most people in France are opposed to president Hollande’s backing of Obama’s drive to war, saying they feared it could “set the entire region ablaze”.

The attack Barack Obama is planning is illegal under international law without the backing of the United Nations security council. It will not help to solve the civil war in Syria which is causing such suffering for the Syrian people. It will only further inflame the conflict, as we have seen happen in all the US-led interventions in the region over the past decade — in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. What is needed in Syria is not more devastation and death at the end of a barrage of US Cruise missiles, but serious moves towards a negotiated political settlement.

On Monday 9 September, John Kerry will be in London banging his drums for more war, while at home Barack Obama prepares a national address to try and persuade the American people and US Congress that yet more war is what’s needed to help bring peace to Syria.

Stop the War has called a protest on Monday 9 September, at 8 am, when John Kerry will be meeting British foreign secretary William Hague at the Foreign Office in Whitehall. If you can, please join us to tell Kerry that the world says no to war on Syria.


* A new motion has been been tabled in Parliament urging US representatives in Congress to reject war.

* Please use Stop the War’s lobbying tool to urge your MP to support this motion: http://act.stopwar.org.uk/lobby/58.


* Stop the War will call a protest at the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, London on the day the US Congress debates the war on Syria. As soon as the date is announced Stop the War will publish details of the protest on our website and through our Facebook and Twitter.


PUBLIC MEETING
No Attack on Syria
Wednesday 11 September
Conway Hall, Red Lion Square on Wednesday 11 September at 7pm.
More details here…

________________________________________________________________________

 

| Putin presses US Congress over Syria, says Kerry lied!

Putin presses US Congress over Syria, says Kerry lied ~ Reuters.

(Reuters) – Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday the U.S. Congress had no right to approve the use of force against Syria without a decision from the U.N. Security Council, and that doing so would be an “act of aggression”.

He said “anything that is outside the U.N. Security Council is aggression, except self-defense. Now what Congress and the U.S. Senate are doing in essence is legitimizing aggression. This is inadmissible in principle.”

In remarks that could raise tension further before he hosts President Barack Obama and other G20 leaders on Thursday, Putin also said U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lied to Congress about the militant group al Qaeda’s role in the Syrian conflict.

“They lie beautifully, of course. I saw debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr Kerry: ‘Is al Qaeda there?’ He says: ‘No, I am telling you responsibly that it is not’,” Putin said at a meeting of his human rights council in the Kremlin.

“Al Qaeda units are the main military echelon, and they know this,” he said, referring to the United States. “It was unpleasant and surprising for me – we talk to them, we proceed from the assumption that they are decent people. But he is lying and knows he is lying. It’s sad.”

Putin did not give any more details.

In an exchange with a senator, Kerry was asked whether it was “basically true” that the Syrian opposition had “become more infiltrated by al Qaeda over time. Kerry said: “No, that is actually basically not true. It’s basically incorrect”.

In another sign of tension, the Russian Foreign Ministry issued a statement saying that since August 31, the U.S. State Department had repeatedly asked for a telephone call between Kerry and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov but Kerry had been unavailable and declined to set a time for the call.

(Reporting by Darya Korsunskaya,; Writing by Steve Gutterman, Editing by Timothy Heritage)

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during an interview at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow September 3, 2013. REUTERS/Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti/Kremlin

Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during an interview at the Novo-Ogaryovo state residence outside Moscow September 3, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Alexei Druzhinin/RIA Novosti/Kremlin

________________________________________________________________________

| Congress and the Imperial Presidency Debate Syria – An Analysis!

Congress and the Imperial Presidency Debate Syria – An Analysis (3 September 2013) ~ Lawrence Davidson.

 

Part I – The President Goes to Congress

 

President Obama has sidestepped the political hole he had dug for himself (what we might call the “red line” hole) over his proposed attack on Syria. Having insisted there must be “consequences” for a breach of international law, specifically the alleged use of banned chemical weapons by the Syrian government, he was faced with both popular American reluctance to support military action and Congressional pique over not being included in the decision process.

 

As a consequence President Obama announced on 31 August 2013 that he now supports a Congressional debate and vote on the issue of attacking Syria. Then he told us how he sees the situation, “This [Syrian chemical] attack is an assault on human dignity…. It risks making a mockery of the global prohibition on the use of chemical weapons…. Ultimately this is not about who occupies this [White House] office at any given time, its about who we are as a country.” 

 

Part II – The U.S. and Chemical Weapons

 

For all I know, the president really believes his own words, but I am pretty sure his implied question of “who we are as a country” is meant to be rhetorical. If one was to give an evidence-based answer to that inquiry, as it relates to chemical weapons, it would be embarrassing in the extreme. Lest we forget, the U.S. defoliated parts of Vietnam with a chemical weapon called Agent Orange and by its use killed a lot more than large swaths of jungle. Agent Orange killed and maimed an estimated 400,000 Vietnamese and an estimated half a million children have subsequently been born deformed. It also did a fatal job on many of the American troops that handled the stuff. Later, the U.S. sold chemical and biological weapons-grade material to Saddam Hussein and followed up by helping his army aim the stuff accurately at Iranian troops. Saddam also used it on the Iraqi Kurds. Then there is the fact that our “very special friend,” Israel, used phosphorous bombs (a banned chemical weapon) on the civilians of Gaza. At the time Israel did this, President Obama occupied the oval office. I don’t remember him displaying any moral angst or positioning U.S. ships in the eastern Mediterranean with cruise missiles aimed at Israeli airbases. The truth is that during all of these episodes no one in the government worried (at least publicly) about what our actions or lack thereof, said about what sort of country this is.

 

However, this question does deserve a direct answer. What sort of country is the U.S. in relation to the use of chemical weapons? The kindest answer one can give is it is a bloody hypocritical nation.  

 

Part III – Back to Congress

 

Nonetheless, sending the issue of a possible attack on Syria to Congress is a timely political move for the president. It puts off having to face the dilemma of taking military action that cannot both constitute meaningful punishment for the violation of international law and, at the same time, keep the U.S. from becoming ever more deeply embroiled in the Syrian civil war.

 

It also could be a good political move for the U.S. as a whole because it creates a good precedent. Having Congress debate and vote on the issue of military action against Syria could help resuscitate the moribund War Powers Act. Although Obama claims he has the authority to launch an attack no matter what Congress decides, he would be politically hard pressed to do so if the legislators said don’t do it. Thus the maneuver might narrow the otherwise rapidly expanding powers of the imperial presidency. Of course, none of this means that Congress can’t be scared or otherwise bamboozled into giving the president the power to do something militarily stupid. Vietnam and Iraq stand as powerful precedents in that regard.

 

There is another very interesting potential consequence of the president’s going to Congress. It might create a situation where there is a publicly noticeable difference between the express desires of a majority of the voting population and the special interests now encouraging military action against Syria. In my last analysis I laid out the idea that in the interim between elections, the influence of powerful special interests have much more to say about policy than do the voters, most of whom pay little attention to foreign policy. Now, however, we have a rare moment when the populace is paying attention and polls indicate that a healthy majority do not want further intervention in the Middle East. Who will the Congress respond to in the upcoming debate and vote, their special interest constituents or the voting kind?

 

Part IV – Conclusion

 

Of course, the notion that the President of the United States, with or without Congressional approval, has the authority to act as the world’s “policeman” and punish violators of international laws, that it itself flaunts, is offensive and dangerous. There are international institutions in place such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) that, imperfect as they are, can be used to prosecute violations such as the use of banned weapons. (It is to be noted that the cause of “human dignity” would be greatly advanced if the U.S. would stop refusing to ratify the treaty empowering the ICC).  

 

How do you characterize a situation where one or a small number of community members takes it upon themselves to go outside the law to punish alleged wrongdoers? Here in the U.S. this is known as “vigilante justice.” Most often this sort of behavior  results is a “lynching” based on little or no reliable evidence. 

 

President Obama’s going to Congress will not change the vigilante nature of U.S. intentions. Let’s just hope that Congress listens to the people this time around and tells the President to keep his cruise missiles to himself. And then, lets hope he does just that.

________________________________________________________________________

crosshairs2_op_800x483

 

 

US Barb2

 

| CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked!’

CIA ‘running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate was attacked’ ~ , TELEGRAPH.CO.UK.

The CIA has been subjecting operatives to monthly polygraph tests in an attempt to suppress details of a US arms smuggling operation in Benghazi that was ongoing when its ambassador was killed by a mob in the city last year, according to reports.

Up to 35 CIA operatives were working in the city during the attack last September on the US consulate that resulted in the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans, according to CNN.

The circumstances of the attack are a subject of deep division in the US with some Congressional leaders pressing for a wide-ranging investigation into suspicions that the government has withheld details of its activities in the Libyan city.

The television network said that a CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels.

Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported. CIA chiefs were actively working to ensure the real nature of its operations in the city did not get out.

So only the losses suffered by the State Department in the city had been reported to Congress.

“Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings,” CNN reported.

Frank Wolf, a US congressman who represents the district that contains CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, is one of 150 members of Congress for a new investigation into the failures in Benghazi.

“I think it is a form of a cover-up, and I think it’s an attempt to push it under the rug, and I think the American people are feeling the same way,” he said. “We should have the people who were on the scene come in, testify under oath, do it publicly, and lay it out. And there really isn’t any national security issue involved with regards to that.”

A CIA spokesman said it had been open about its activities in Benghazi.

“The CIA has worked closely with its oversight committees to provide them with an extraordinary amount of information related to the attack on US facilities in Benghazi,” a CIA statement said. “CIA employees are always free to speak to Congress if they want,” the statement continued. “The CIA enabled all officers involved in Benghazi the opportunity to meet with Congress. We are not aware of any CIA employee who has experienced retaliation, including any non-routine security procedures, or who has been prevented from sharing a concern with Congress about the Benghazi incident.”

CIA running arms smuggling team in Benghazi when consulate attack: The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group in this file photo taken September 11, 2012.

The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group, September 11, 2012. Photo: REUTERS
________________________________________________________________________

| Time to stop the blank cheque + BDS instead: Cut Israel loose!

Stop the Blank Check

$8 million a day to Israel just doesn’t make sense!

Billboard

“On average, Israelis receive 10,000 times more US foreign aid per capita than other people throughout the world, despite the fact that Israel is one of the world’s more affluent nations.”

— The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans

sign the check!

American taxpayers have given more money to Israel than to any other nation, despite the fact that Israel is one of the smallest and richest countries on earth.

Thanks to special interest lobbying, which, until now, has largely gone unopposed, Israel receives $3 billion American tax dollars each year. This comes to awhopping $8.2 million per day. But that is not all. Special arrangements that benefit Israel combined with aid paid out to other countries on its behalf cost Americans nearly $7 million more each day and thousands of jobs.

We can’t afford it – morally, financially, or strategically.

Why do we use the phrase “Blank Check”?

U.S. support goes far beyond the $8 million per day in financial aid that we give it. Israel and its partisans largely decree what American taxpayers give them: massive amounts of money, American weaponry and technology, trade benefits, UN vetoes, special treatment for its lobby, letting it off the hook when it spies on us and steals important resources.

There is never any debate over the massive financial aid given to Israel, and when it asks for even more money on top of its already huge annual allotment – which it frequently does – our politicians, under enormous pressure by wealthy campaign donors and lobbying organizations, give it to them… again without public debate or questioning. Even when Israel commits massacres, tries to sink a US Navy ship, kills Americans, violates U.S. laws, and ignores Presidential statements, our politicians give Israel massive amounts of our tax money.

(See The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans for more details and source information.)

_______________________________________________________

Stop the Blank Check

Sign the Check

At a time when politicians pay more attention to lobbies than to the needs of our citizens, we’re delivering a different kind of check.

Sign this check to send a powerful message to the candidates and Congress!

StopTheBlankCheck.org
9208 NE Highway 99, Suite 107-207
Vancouver, WA 98665

PAY TO THE ORDER OF

The candidate who finally ends our blank check to Israel

$

1 vote

One Vote (priceless)

DOLLARS
MEMO

Write a personalized message below.

Name:
Zip:

How does this work?

We are collecting signatures and plan to print physical checks to deliver to candidates and members of Congress. We hope to bring pressure for an end to US aid to Israel by delivering bundles of “checks.”

Get Involved: Order checkbooks and start collecting signatures!

Why “Blank Check”?

Israel’s special treatment goes far beyond receiving $8 million per day in US tax dollars. Thanks to its powerful lobby, Israel almost always gets what it wants: American weaponry and technology, trade benefits, UN vetoes, and much more. Learn more: The Staggering Cost of Israel to Americans