Rep. Amash: ‘If Americans Could Read Classified Docs, They’d Be Even More Against Syria Action’

Rep. Amash: ‘If Americans Could Read Classified Docs, They’d Be Even More Against Syria Action’
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rep-amash-if-americans-could-read-classified-docs-theyd-be-even-more-against-syria-action_092013

Melissa Melton
The Daily Sheeple
September 7th, 2013

Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) has been a very outspoken opponent of any military intervention in Syria. He has been all over the media warning that we as a nation should not strike Syria, and he has even used social media sites to warn his fellow Congress members that if they vote for military action next week, they might as well clean out their desks because of unprecedented public opposition against it.

Now Rep. Amash has taken to Twitter to inform the American people that if we could read the classified documents touted by our White House to justify strikes in Syria, we’d be “even more against Syria action”.

The Tweet followed his admission that he was even more skeptical following another Syria briefing and a call for the Obama Administration to correct public statements that he claims are inconsistent with the information he received at the briefings because the “public must have facts”.

Rep. Amash was also vocal regarding the fact that many members of Congress were never briefed on the NSA’s surveillance programs that ignore the Constitution by collecting data on every single American citizen. Last summer Rep. Amash introduced an amendment that would have prevented the NSA from collecting data on Americans who are not currently under investigation, but it lost by a sorry 12 votes in the House, 205-217.

All the evidence indicates that Obama is not going to get Congressional approval for any military action against Syria during the vote next week. The president and his administration have been mum about what they will do in the event Congress votes against Syrian intervention. Obama has already said he does not believe he needs any Congressional approval to bomb Syria.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

Contributed by Melissa Melton of The Daily Sheeple.

Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple and a co-creator of Truthstream Media. Wake the flock up!

Please share: Spread the word to sheeple far and wide
- See more at: http://www.thedailysheeple.com/rep-amash-if-americans-could-read-classified-docs-theyd-be-even-more-against-syria-action_092013#sthash.vTnjIprU.dpuf

Read More

Satire:A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/poll-majority-of-americans-approve-of-sending-cong,33752/


A majority of U.S. citizens believe congressional leaders in both the House and Senate must be sent to war-torn Syria immediately.

WASHINGTON—
As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

“I believe it is in the best interest of the United States, and the global community as a whole, to move forward with the deployment of all U.S. congressional leaders to Syria immediately,” respondent Carol Abare, 50, said in the nationwide telephone survey, echoing the thoughts of an estimated 9 in 10 Americans who said they “strongly support” any plan of action that involves putting the U.S. House and Senate on the ground in the war-torn Middle Eastern state. “With violence intensifying every day, now is absolutely the right moment—the perfect moment, really—for the United States to send our legislators to the region.”

“In fact, my preference would have been for Congress to be deployed months ago,” she added.
Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

In fact, 91 percent of those surveyed agreed that the active use of sarin gas attacks by the Syrian government would, if anything, only increase poll respondents’ desire to send Congress to Syria.
Public opinion was essentially unchanged when survey respondents were asked about a broader range of attacks, with more than 79 percent of Americans saying they would strongly support sending Congress to Syria in cases of bomb and missile attacks, 78 percent supporting intervention in cases of kidnappings and executions, and 75 percent saying representatives should be deployed in cases where government forces were found to have used torture.

When asked if they believe that Sen. Rand Paul should be deployed to Syria, 100 percent of respondents said yes.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that sending Congress to Syria—or, at the very least, sending the major congressional leaders in both parties—is the correct course of action,” survey respondent and Iraq war veteran Maj. Gen. John Mill said, noting that his opinion was informed by four tours of duty in which he saw dozens of close friends sustain physical as well as emotional injury and post-traumatic stress. “There is a clear solution to our problems staring us right in the face here, and we need to take action.”

“Sooner rather than later, too,” Mill added. “This war isn’t going to last forever.”

Read More

Zapiro September 1, 2013

Read More

Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/syria-war-authorization-money/

Senators Authorizing Syria Strike Got More Defense Cash Than Lawmakers Voting No

• BY DAVID KRAVETS
• 09.05.13
• 6:30 AM

Senators voting Wednesday to authorize a Syria strike received, on average, 83 percent more campaign financing from defense contractors than lawmakers voting against war.

Overall, political action committees and employees from defense and intelligence firms such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, United Technologies, Honeywell International, and others ponied up $1,006,887 to the 17 members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who voted yes or no on the authorization Wednesday, according to an analysis by Maplight, the Berkeley-based nonprofit that performed the inquiry at WIRED’s request.

Committee members who voted to authorize what the resolution called a “limited” strike averaged $72,850 in defense campaign financing from the pot. Committee members who voted against the resolution averaged $39,770, according to the data.

The analysis of contributions from employees and PACs of defense industry interests ranges from 2007 through 2012 — based on data tracked by OpenSecrets.org.

The authorization must be approved by the full Senate and House.

Among other things, the deal sets a 60-day engagement limit, and bars U.S. ground troops from combat missions. The plan essentially is the legal basis to authorize President Barack Obama topunish Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons, killing some 1,400 people as part of its ongoing civil war.

The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “yes” were Sen. John McCain (R-Arizona) at $176,000; Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) at $127,350; and Sen. Timothy Kaine (D-Virginia) at $101,025.

The top three defense-campaign earners who voted “no” were Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyoming) at $86,500; Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) at $62,790; and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) at $59,250.

Read More

Six Feet Under

This is a dream, your dream, being dreamt inside of an illusion.

 “It's just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It's only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money; just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one.”  (Bill Hicks 1961 – 1994)

We are right now choosing our way, our timeline, our ride; we are walking our talk.  Look at the deepest hidden parts.  The parts you created in this incarnation to get you through it, to carry you right up until this moment now.  This side of the fence has bliss in it, and we are almost there.  These parts, the hidden ones, are parts you don’t quite “get”.  They have been buried. 

  

Six feet under is a good analogy.  It is like they have risen from the dead now, to haunt you. 

In every haunting there is a back story of unfinished business, an incomplete life, something left undone.  This is the same scenario.  Today you deal with what has been swept under the rug, buried, hidden; walked over and invisible as you carried out your life; the life you are living right now.  

Can you look at what holds you back?  What is it that keeps you stuck?  What tender spot are you protecting?  Who are you keeping safe?  What are you not seeing?  What is this terrifying, ugly truth that you will keep hidden at all costs?  What will you not accept?

Here, in a puppet show, is a hideous truth.  It is not for the feint of heart.  It is one of the secrets being kept at all costs.  

This is not something to be afraid of.  It is something to deal with.  There is a choice to be made now, and it is as simple as Bill put it.  It is the choice to love or to live in fear.  

In the US, the Senate committee on foreign relations just approved what they are calling a “limited strike” on Syria.  If you remember, how it works, the Senate now has to vote, as well as a House committee and the House (if it gets that far).  

It doesn’t have to get that far.  We can speak.  We can speak of love.  We can do more than sign a petition or click “like”.  We can tell the truth.  We can tell the “puppets” we elected what it is we expect of them.  We can share what we know. Without being led or following anyone else, we can do this.  A sovereign people speak for themselves.  There is no such thing as a strike that is “limited”.  This is bullying, this is a set up and we know how this works.  It is about a pipeline, it is about money, it is about control. 

Write your congressman.

Write your senator.

What is happening worldwide is a mirror for our internal showdown.  You are being asked to choose.  What will it be?  What are you holding onto that keeps you stuck?  Keeps you here?  Keeps you filled with density, angry, hurt, pre-occupied, _____________ (fill in the blank)?  What do you need to release?

What do you need to see?  What is this really important thing you have a death grip on?  What is it?  Do you see it now?  See yourself holding onto it while the rest are swirling around you – free.  Is it worth that much to you?

This thing, this holding onto thing, is your anchor.  It is your chain.  It is your shackle – it is stopping you from flight. It is not another person.  It is not a situation.  It is something inside; you’ve considered it part of who you are.  

This is that one part of you that you do not see.  It is what you’d call your identity.  You feel it cannot be released because without it “you” would die.  Yet, it is what’s stopping you from living.  

It is not the most important thing.  The most important thing is love.  

You know this.  Life has taught you otherwise, and at some point you decided you’d die holding onto this.  Is it pride?  What will be lost if you let go?

I tell you this.  What is at stake is everything.  You feel now the truth.  There is something you have to do.  Something to face.  Something you fear.  Something that no longer serves you.  Something that no longer serves anyone.

Love it and let it go.  This new world, the one pulling you in, is not waiting.  Its right here and you can only enter unencumbered.  No guilt, no pride, no loss, no judgment.  Only love lives here.

Children know.  Listen.  "Everyone loves them self. Even if you don't want to love yourself you still do in your angel body" (an angel, age 6, a few days ago). Your angel body is already in the new world.  He is pulling you.  Her arms are outstretched.  This is a dream.  Wake up.  Do it. 

You are the One you’ve been waiting for.

 ~Sophia

Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against your passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?


Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul. If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.
Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion, that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.


I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honour one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.


Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows -- then let your heart say in silence, "God rests in reason."
And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky -- then let your heart say in awe, "God moves in passion."
And since you are a breath in God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

On Reason and Passion
 Kahlil Gibran

Read More

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?

Is The United States Going To Go To War With Syria Over A Natural Gas Pipeline?
By Michael Snyder, on September 3rd, 2013
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline

Why has the little nation of Qatar spent 3 billion dollars to support the rebels in Syria?  Could it be because Qatar is the largest exporter of liquid natural gas in the world and Assad won't let them build a natural gas pipeline through Syria?  Of course.  Qatar wants to install a puppet regime in Syria that will allow them to build a pipeline which will enable them to sell lots and lots of natural gas to Europe.  Why is Saudi Arabia spending huge amounts of money to help the rebels and why has Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan been "jetting from covert command centers near the Syrian front lines to the Élysée Palace in Paris and the Kremlin in Moscow, seeking to undermine the Assad regime"?  Well, it turns out that Saudi Arabia intends to install their own puppet government in Syria which will allow the Saudis to control the flow of energy through the region.  On the other side, Russia very much prefers the Assad regime for a whole bunch of reasons.  One of those reasons is that Assad is helping to block the flow of natural gas out of the Persian Gulf into Europe, thus ensuring higher profits for Gazprom.  Now the United States is getting directly involved in the conflict.  If the U.S. is successful in getting rid of the Assad regime, it will be good for either the Saudis or Qatar (and possibly for both), and it will be really bad for Russia.  This is a strategic geopolitical conflict about natural resources, religion and money, and it really has nothing to do with chemical weapons at all.

It has been common knowledge that Qatar has desperately wanted to construct a natural gas pipeline that will enable it to get natural gas to Europe for a very long time.  The following is an excerpt from an article from 2009...

Qatar has proposed a gas pipeline from the Gulf to Turkey in a sign the emirate is considering a further expansion of exports from the world's biggest gasfield after it finishes an ambitious programme to more than double its capacity to produce liquefied natural gas (LNG).

"We are eager to have a gas pipeline from Qatar to Turkey," Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, the ruler of Qatar, said last week, following talks with the Turkish president Abdullah Gul and the prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the western Turkish resort town of Bodrum. "We discussed this matter in the framework of co-operation in the field of energy. In this regard, a working group will be set up that will come up with concrete results in the shortest possible time," he said, according to Turkey's Anatolia news agency.

Other reports in the Turkish press said the two states were exploring the possibility of Qatar supplying gas to the strategic Nabucco pipeline project, which would transport Central Asian and Middle Eastern gas to Europe, bypassing Russia. A Qatar-to-Turkey pipeline might hook up with Nabucco at its proposed starting point in eastern Turkey. Last month, Mr Erdogan and the prime ministers of four European countries signed a transit agreement for Nabucco, clearing the way for a final investment decision next year on the EU-backed project to reduce European dependence on Russian gas.

"For this aim, I think a gas pipeline between Turkey and Qatar would solve the issue once and for all," Mr Erdogan added, according to reports in several newspapers. The reports said two different routes for such a pipeline were possible. One would lead from Qatar through Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq to Turkey. The other would go through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey. It was not clear whether the second option would be connected to the Pan-Arab pipeline, carrying Egyptian gas through Jordan to Syria. That pipeline, which is due to be extended to Turkey, has also been proposed as a source of gas for Nabucco.

Based on production from the massive North Field in the Gulf, Qatar has established a commanding position as the world's leading LNG exporter. It is consolidating that through a construction programme aimed at increasing its annual LNG production capacity to 77 million tonnes by the end of next year, from 31 million tonnes last year. However, in 2005, the emirate placed a moratorium on plans for further development of the North Field in order to conduct a reservoir study.

As you just read, there were two proposed routes for the pipeline.  Unfortunately for Qatar, Saudi Arabia said no to the first route and Syria said no to the second route.  The following is from an absolutely outstanding article in the Guardian...

In 2009 - the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria - Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter's North field, contiguous with Iran's South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets - albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad's rationale was "to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe's top supplier of natural gas."

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 - just as Syria's civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo - and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a "direct slap in the face" to Qatar's plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

If Qatar is able to get natural gas flowing into Europe, that will be a significant blow to Russia.  So the conflict in Syria is actually much more about a pipeline than it is about the future of the Syrian people.  In a recent article, Paul McGuire summarized things quite nicely...

The Nabucco Agreement was signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009. It was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria, bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Qatar would love to sell its LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. The only solution for Qatar if it wants to sell its oil is to cut a deal with the U.S.

Recently Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International have made a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. Qatar stands to make a lot of money and the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why natural gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long. What appears to be a conflict with Syria is really a conflict between the U.S. and Russia!

The main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. These are the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising, having spent over $3 billion so far on the conflict. The other side of the story is Saudi Arabia, which finances anti-Assad groups in Syria. The Saudis do not want to be marginalized by Qatar; thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Yes, I know that this is all very complicated.

But no matter how you slice it, there is absolutely no reason for the United States to be getting involved in this conflict.

If the U.S. does get involved, we will actually be helping al-Qaeda terrorists that behead mothers and their infants...

Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in Syria have beheaded all 24 Syrian passengers traveling from Tartus to Ras al-Ain in northeast of Syria, among them a mother and a 40-days old infant.

Gunmen from the terrorist Islamic State of Iraq and Levant stopped the bus on the road in Talkalakh and killed everyone before setting the bus on fire.

Is this really who we want to be "allied" with?

And of course once we strike Syria, the war could escalate into a full-blown conflict very easily.

If you believe that the Obama administration would never send U.S. troops into Syria, you are just being naive.  In fact, according to Jack Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School, the proposed authorization to use military force that has been sent to Congress would leave the door wide open for American "boots on the ground"...

The proposed AUMF focuses on Syrian WMD but is otherwise very broad.  It authorizes the President to use any element of the U.S. Armed Forces and any method of force.  It does not contain specific limits on targets – either in terms of the identity of the targets (e.g. the Syrian government, Syrian rebels, Hezbollah, Iran) or the geography of the targets.  Its main limit comes on the purposes for which force can be used.  Four points are worth making about these purposes.  First, the proposed AUMF authorizes the President to use force “in connection with” the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war. (It does not limit the President’s use force to the territory of Syria, but rather says that the use of force must have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian conflict.  Activities outside Syria can and certainly do have a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war.).  Second, the use of force must be designed to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of WMDs “within, to or from Syria” or (broader yet) to “protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.”  Third, the proposed AUMF gives the President final interpretive authority to determine when these criteria are satisfied (“as he determines to be necessary and appropriate”).  Fourth, the proposed AUMF contemplates no procedural restrictions on the President’s powers (such as a time limit).

I think this AUMF has much broader implications than Ilya Somin described.  Some questions for Congress to ponder:

(1) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to take sides in the Syrian Civil War, or to attack Syrian rebels associated with al Qaeda, or to remove Assad from power?  Yes, as long as the President determines that any of these entities has a (mere) connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and that the use of force against one of them would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.  It is very easy to imagine the President making such determinations with regard to Assad or one or more of the rebel groups.

(2) Does the proposed AUMF authorize the President to use force against Iran or Hezbollah, in Iran or Lebanon?  Again, yes, as long as the President determines that Iran or Hezbollah has a (mere) a connection to the use of WMD in the Syrian civil war, and the use of force against Iran or Hezbollah would prevent or deter the use or proliferation of WMD within, or to and from, Syria, or protect the U.S. or its allies (e.g. Israel) against the (mere) threat posed by those weapons.

Would you like to send your own son or your own daughter to fight in Syria just so that a natural gas pipeline can be built?

What the United States should be doing in this situation is so obvious that even the five-year-old grandson of Nancy Pelosi can figure it out...

I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.'

Unfortunately, his grandmother and most of our other insane "leaders" in Washington D.C. seem absolutely determined to take us to war.

In the end, how much American blood will be spilled over a stupid natural gas pipeline?

Read More

Dutch secret service has no 'hard evidence' about Syria gas attack

Thanks for the heads up Luc!

Dutch secret service has no 'hard evidence' about Syria gas attack

Wednesday 04 September 2013

Dutch security officials have no hard evidence the Assad regime in Syria carried out a poison gas attack on Damascus last month, MPs leaving a special briefing on Wednesday told reporters.

The two Dutch security services have analysed all the information presented by the US and briefed the various party's foreign affairs spokesmen. The contents of the briefing are secret, Nos television reported.

'I am not allowed to say anything, but I am still not convinced,' ChristenUnie MP Joel Voordewinde told the Nos. Socialist MP Harry van Bommel said he had not heard anything new.

Lessons

Foreign minister Frans Timmermans has said repeatedly the Netherlands must draw its own conclusions about what happened in Syria. 'The past has taught us that we must not automatically accept what other countries tell us,' the minister is quoted as saying.

The minister was referring to claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction made in 2003. They later turned out not to be true.

A final effort first has to be made to persuade the UN security council to take action against Syria, Timmermans said.

- See more at: http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2013/09/dutch_secret_service_has_no_ha.php

Read More

White House peeved at Pentagon leaks

White House peeved at Pentagon leaks

http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/08/white-house-peeved-at-pentagon-leaks-171520.html

By GLENN THRUSH | 8/30/13 5:10 PM EDT

Many of the leaks about U.S. strike plans for Syria, a copious flow of surprisingly specific information on ship dispositions and possible targets, have been authorized as a way for President Obama to signal the limited scope of operations to friends and foes.

But a number of leaks have been decidedly unauthorized -- and, according to Obama administration sources, likely emanating from a Pentagon bureaucracy less enthusiastic about the prospect of an attack than, say, the State Department, National Security Council or Obama himself.

"Deeply unhelpful," was how one West Winger described the drip-drip of doubt. 

"They need to shut the f--k up," said a former administration official. "It's embarrassing. Who ever heard this much talk before an attack? It's bizarre."

(WATCH: John McCain fumes over Syria leaks)

An obvious example was a report in Thursday's Washington Post in which current and former officers listed their worries about Syria:

“I can’t believe the president is even considering it,” said [one] officer, who like most officers interviewed for this story agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity because military personnel are reluctant to criticize policymakers while military campaigns are being planned. “We have been fighting the last 10 years a counterinsurgency war. Syria has modern weaponry. We would have to retrain for a conventional war.”

Far more damaging have been a series of disclosures that more subtlely undermine Obama's claim that the Syria action will be quick and clean, punitive and tailored. Earlier this week the New York Times reported on doubts that the main weapon likely employed against Syrian President Bashar Assad, the Tomahawk cruise missile, would have a meaningful impact on the regime's chemical weapons facilities which are widely scattered and likely to be well hidden. This graf, I'm told, chafed in particular:

The weapons are not often effective against mobile targets, like missile launchers, and cannot be used to attack underground bunkers. Naval officers and attack planners concede that the elevation of the missile cannot entirely be controlled and that there is a risk of civilian casualties when they fly slightly high.

The back-and-forth is hardly unprecedented; For decades, military officials -- the people who actually have to implement war plans -- have been a source of dissent. Think Pentagon Papers. And Obama officials say the criticism isn't coming from Secretary Chuck Hagel and his cadre of top aides but lower-ranking brass.

(PHOTOS: Scenes from Syria)

One top leader who has been publicly skeptical of the costs and dangers of getting involved in the Syrian civil war is Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey who offered a cost estimate of $1 billion per month for a no-fly zone and buffer-zone ground force during congressional testimony earlier this summer.

During the same appearance Dempsey predicted such areas could become sanctuaries for Islamic radicals and said even a limited strike, of the type being contemplated now, could cost "billions."

Read More

Congress putting the brakes on Obama

Congress putting the brakes on Obama
by  Robert Naiman, Common Dreams    …with  Press TV

[Editors Note: Dear all, now is the time to grab your telephone pitch forks and get those calls in to the White house, your Congressman  and both Senators. Give them congrats or spanking accordingly. They need to be shocked when they get back after Labor Day if they don't get called back anyway. A debate will give us more time to find more holes in their bogus gassing scam and expose them enough to demand an investigation now for treason for 'someone' attempting to launch the country into a military endeavor where their is not threat...Jim W. Dean]
______________________________

By my count, at least 162 Members of the House of Representatives, including 64 Democrats, have done at least one of the following things in the last few days:

1) signed a letter initiated by California Democrat Barbara Lee saying that there must be Congressional debate and vote before war with Syria;

2) signed a letter initiated by Virginia Republican Scott Rigell saying that there must be Congressional debate and vote before war with Syria

3) issued a statement calling for a Congressional debate and vote before war with Syria. I don’t claim that this count is exhaustive. If you know of other examples, please share them in the comments.

By my count, at least 64 Democrats in the House have done at least one of these three things. Add this to the 98 Republicans who signed the Rigell letter and you get 162.
____________________________________

These are the 54 Democratic signers of the Lee letter, according to Lee’s office:
Barbara Lee, Mike Honda, Lois Capps, Zoe Lofgren, John Lewis, Jackie Speier, Ra?l Grijalva, Robin Kelly, Beto O’Rourke, Michael H. Michaud, Mark Pocan, Peter A. DeFazio, Peter Welch, Chellie Pingree, Nydia M. Vel?zquez, Sam Farr, Stephen F. Lynch, Lloyd Doggett, Janice Hahn, Jared Huffman, Tulsi Gabbard, Emanuel Cleaver, Rush Holt, Jim McDermott, Sheila Jackson Lee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, Suzanne Bonamici, José E. Serrano, George Miller, Donna F. Edwards, Robert C. “Bobby” Scott, Steve Cohen, Marcy Kaptur, Danny K. Davis, Alcee L. Hastings, James P. McGovern, Judy Chu, Marcia L. Fudge, Alan S. Lowenthal, Charles B. Rangel, Bobby L. Rush, Carolyn B. Maloney, Janice Schakowsky, Donna M. Christensen, David Loebsack, Richard M. Nolan, Henry A. Waxman, Diana DeGette, Yvette D. Clarke, Keith Ellison, Niki Tsongas, Eleanor Holmes Norton, John A. Yarmuth, Julia Brownley.

These are the 18 Democratic signers among the 116 signers of the Rigell letter, as noted by The Hill: Zoe Lofgren, Rush Holt, Beto O’Rourke, Peter DeFazio, Kurt Schrader, William Enyart, Tim Walz, Sam Farr, Bruce Braley, Jim McDermott, Michael Capuano, Anna Eshoo, Earl Blumenauer, Peter Welch, Rick Nolan, David Loebsack, Jim Matheson, Collin Peterson.

Sixty-three Democrats signed at least one of the two letters.  In addition, New York Democrat Jerry Nadler put out a statement saying that there must be a debate and vote.

Why does this matter? It matters because if President Obama were to strike Syria without Congressional authorization, he would violate the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
But it also matters because debate surfaces key information. Earlier this week, press was reporting that the U.S. bombing of Syria could start as early as Thursday. By Thursday, here had been no bombing.

Is the Navy being misused? Have rogue elements

 penetrated us again to supply false Intel?

Instead, on Thursday, AP reported that “the intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no ‘slam dunk,’” and that this “uncertainty calls into question the statements by Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden”.

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.

Ideally, the White House seeks intelligence that links the attack directly to Assad or someone in his inner circle to rule out the possibility that a rogue element of the military decided to use chemical weapons without Assad’s authorization.

Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.

Kerry had said: “We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons.”
By Thursday, we knew that what Kerry said on Monday was not true. He said “we know.” But, according the U.S. intelligence officials cited by AP, we don't know.

If the bombing had happened on Thursday, then the bombing would have happened before AP reported that what Kerry said on Monday was not true.

Can people still say with a straight face that Congress shouldn't debate and vote before the President attacks Syria, or that it doesn't matter if they do?

If you think Congress should debate and vote before any war with Syria, you can join 25,000 people at MoveOn.org in telling Congress.
Editing:  Jim W. Dean

Read More

Russia Restructures Cyprus Debt; Cyprus Prohibits US Strikes On Syria

Never try to outplay a Russian at chess... -Bill

Russia Restructures Cyprus Debt; Cyprus Prohibits US Strikes On Syria

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/31/2013 15:00 -0400

• Google
 
• Middle East
 
• United Kingdom

Yesterday afternoon, Russia agreed to restructure Cyprus' EUR 2.5 billion loan terms to a much more affordable 2.5% semi-annual coupon through 2016 and a principal re-payment over the following four years. While probably still out of reach for the desparate economy, it was a positive step. Of course, this 'offer' by Russia has its quid pro quo. This morning, Foreign Minister Ioannis Kasoulides has stated that Cyprus territory will not be used to launch military strikes against Syria, as "Cyprus wants to live up to its responsibility as a shelter if needed for nationals of friendly countries who evacuate from Middle East". It would appear Obama's influence is fading everywhere...

Read full article here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-31/russia-restructures-cyprus-debt-cyprus-prohibits-us-strikes-syria

Read More

ZEROHEDGE: US Finally Admits What Ron Paul Said: "Nobody Knows Who Set Off The Gas"

US Finally Admits What Ron Paul Said: "Nobody Knows Who Set Off The Gas"
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 08/29/2013 12:39 -0400
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-29/us-finally-admits-what-ron-paul-said-nobody-knows-who-launched-chemical-attack

The AP reports that US intelligence officials are admitting that linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," as opposed to Obama (and Kerry) who are 'unequivocal' of the fact.

Via AP,

The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack is no "slam dunk," with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria's chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.

...

an intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are "undeniable," U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.

...
Perhaps more concerning...

Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government's control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.

"The danger of escalation with Russia is very high," Ron Paul warns in this brief Fox News interview. After casting doubts on the government's 'knowledge' and reasoning in the region, Paul gets straight to the point. Simply put, he notes, despite the ongoing headlines of 'proof' and 'dreadful videos', Paul states "We're not positive who set off the gas," and indeed - who is set to benefit most from any Assad-regime-smackdown? Al-Qaeda.

"Assad is not an idiot," Paul adds, "it's unlikely he would do this on purpose... look how many lies were told to us about Saddam Hussein prior to that build-up." A lot of uncomrtable truths in this brief clip for an administration that has crossed its own red line (as we noted here) on actions against Syria now... "I think it's a false flag..." Paul adds, there is a big risk that "we are getting sucked in" and the American people are against this war.

Read More

Updated: Did Qatar fund the smuggling of Libyan poison gas shells to Syria?

Doha Qatar at night

On August 21, 2012 President Obama unfortunately gave his redline for Syria which everyone seems to be taking advantage. Whether Obama is likely to back down from a Syrian confrontation, especially with the Republic hawks advocating remains to be seen...

"We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people," Obama told reporters at the White House. "We have been very clear to the Assad regime -- but also to other players on the ground -- that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.

"That would change my calculus; that would change my equation."Obama added that U.S. officials are monitoring the situation "very carefully" and have put together a number of contingency plans.

Saudi support for Syrian rebels shaped by tribal, religious ties"We have communicated in no uncertain terms with every player in the region that that's a red line for us and that there would be enormous consequences if we start seeing movement on the chemical weapons front or the use of chemical weapons."

Obama's remarks appeared to ratchet up his stance on the matter."

I was sent an archive of documents yesterday from two separate sources that originated in January 2013 hack of a Malaysian server by a hacker who goes by the pseudonym of JAsIrx.  Inside the archive is an interesting internal email from the British military contracting company Britam.  Its not a new find, its been floating in the Internet for some time now, and probably not coincidental I get it from two apparently unconnected sources on the same day. Notice the date on the email, December 24, 2012...just four months after Obama committed to going to war in Syria over chemical weapons.

I am not going to publish the entire archive much if it is mundane material about guarding Iraqi oil fields for oil companies, and war gaming exercises in Qatar, and employee details that are not relevant to this moment of now.  In fact most of the archive doesn't prove much of anything other than they were a Haliburton subcontractor and an apparent direct contractor to Qatar. 

If the document is real, it only proves Qatar offered them money, it doesn't directly prove they pulled it off.  To stretch an analogy past its breaking point, a man offering a woman money for sex isn't proof she's a prostitute, its only proof she's attractive. She can always refuse and walk away. But morals are often bent for the right price in this world...

Its well known that Qatar and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) have been funding Syrian rebels and funneling Jihadis into the area. Qatar and KSA want to build a natural gas pipeline through Syria to Turkey to sell oil into the European market.  This is also the reason why Russia has a huge interest in protecting Syria because its near monopoly on natural gas supplies to Europe would be threatened by a near east natural gas pipeline.  


Russia Today had this article 5 days ago. "US going against democratic values in Syria to protect its oil industry"
http://rt.com/op-edge/us-syria-protect-oil-industry-908/

The UK paper the Telegraph ran a story today confirming what my military contact told me yesterday that Saudi Arabia, through KSA Intelligence head Prince Bandar,  offered Putin a special deal with OPEC, and also offered a guarantee of no Chechen attacks during the Russian Olympics if they stay out of Syria.  It seems KSA is learning from the Israelis about screwing their own allies (US) when its convenient.

You can read about that here:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

There are images of Ukrainian passports in the archive I received as well as an image of Philip Doughty's passport.  But again it does prove they did it, nor has the movie they were purported asked to make yet surfaced implicating the Russians via the Ukrainian actors...

You might want to be on the lookout for these faces below on any purported "Russian Poison Gas Experts" in Syria videos that might come out in the coming days. These men all work for Britam.  I wouldn't normally publish passport photos but the stakes are pretty high in the world right now...

You can read about the hacked data here:

http://daily.bhaskar.com/article/WOR-hacked-email-reveals-qatars-devious-plans-to-smuggle-chemical-weapons-in-syria-4360059-NOR.html

http://redhotrussia.com/britam-defense-hacked-russia-syria/

http://www.voltairenet.org/article177357.html

http://my.firedoglake.com/ctuttle/2013/01/29/mena-mashup-benghazi-the-britam-hack-the-fordow-hoax-and-syria/

And the debunking sites blaming it on Iran, Syria, etc...

https://www.facebook.com/AnonPress1/posts/296483683810350

http://syriancommando.wordpress.com/2013/01/29/britam-trap/

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=30406.5;wap2

The Israeli link in the reports of gas attacks
This article poses some questions about Israel's involvement and their desire to bring Iran into the conflict

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/israeli-intelligence-intercepted-syria-chemical-talk

...and Israel has natural gas deposits of its own...do we have a weird nexus of KSA, Qatar and Iraeli interests when it comes to Syria?

http://www.cfr.org/israel/do-israels-mediterranean-natural-gas-resources-mean-regions-economy-security/p30916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamar_gas_field

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2013/04/11/israels-natural-gas-finds-win-the-worlds-notice/

Oh and lest we forget the cream on the frothing angst ridden latte cup of turmoil in Syria,  its also the retirement home of former Jesuit "Black Pope" Peter-Hans Kolvenbach!  He retired to the "near east" to help the peace in that region.... how's that working out Peter? Oh I know when I think peace and retirement the first thing that pops in my mind is Syria... just sayin' as my friend D. says...

http://www.ignatianspirituality.com/ignatian-voices/20th-century-ignatian-voices/peter-hans-kolvenbach-sj/

Ben Fulford wrote on August 21, 2012: "It appears to be no coincidence that former black pope Peter Hans Kolvenbach chose to retire in Syria."

Ben Fulford wrote on September 11, 2012: "The starting point for this will be the Middle East, Peter Hans Kolvenbach’s base of operations. Kolvenbach was recently spotted in Tripoli [Libya for the geographically impaired] with Giorgio Balestrieri, a Senior P2 Lodge member and one of the mid-level planners of the 911 terror attack on New York, MI5 says.

The planning for this has all been very long term. During World War 2 the Nazis recruited and trained 750,000 agents for the Muslim Brotherhood to help implement this plan.

These agents were then sent to Saudi Arabia and other places as teachers to raise a second generation of Muslim extremist agents. Bin Laden, who reported to George Bush Senior, was a second generation member of this group.

Another senior agent is Frank Wisner II who was sent by Obama to take control of the contrived “revolution” in Egypt. Wisner’s father was a Nazi CIA who was involved in the Hungarian uprising and other operations. Egypt’s new Nazi puppet leader has been following the script he was given by trying to fan the flames of religious extremism most recently, for example, by berating Syria’s secular government."

Rumors have abounded in recent months that the incident in Benghazi was a war between two US factions of intelligence services, the Pentagon and the CIA / Gladio faction known to be a key fomenter of strife in the middle east. Maybe the Pentagon brass got tired of seeing their boys dying for banker's wars and the opium trade? 

Infowars.com wrote: “Benghazi is not about Libya, Benghazi is about the policy of the Obama administration to involve the United States without clarity to the American people, not only in Libya but throughout the whole of the Arab world now in turmoil,” Baxter told Kudlow. “Benghazi is about the NSC directing an operation that is perhaps shadowy, perhaps a presidential finding, perhaps doesn’t, that takes arms and men and puts them into Syria in the guise of the Free Syria Army.”

Retired Lt. General William Boykin said in January that Stevens was in Benghazi as part of an effort to arm al-Qaeda, what the corporate media calls the rebels. “More supposition was that he was now funneling guns to the rebel forces in Syria, using essentially the Turks to facilitate that. Was that occurring, (a), and if so, was it a legal covert action?” Boykin said during an interview with CNS News.

Boykin said Stevens was “given a directive to support the Syrian rebels” and the State Department’s Special Mission Compound in Benghazi “would be the hub of that activity.”

In 2011, Stevens was officially appointed to be the Obama administration’s liaison with the “budding Libyan opposition,” according to ABC News. By March, 2011, it was firmly established that the so-called Libya opposition was interchangeable with al-Qaeda. Stevens and the State Department worked directly with Abdelhakim Belhadj of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. Belhadj has direct connections to al-Qaeda.

The murder of Stevens, of course, did not slow down the flow of arms from Libya to al-Qaeda in Syria. “The United States is launching a covert operation to send weapons to Syrian rebels for the first time as it ramps up military efforts to oust President Bashar al-Assad,” The Sunday Times reported in early December, 2012.

“Mortars, rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank missiles will be sent through friendly Middle Eastern countries already supplying the rebels, according to well-placed diplomatic sources. The Americans have bought some of the weapons from the stockpiles of Muammar Gadaffi, the Libyan dictator killed last year. They include SA-7 missiles, which can be used to shoot down aircraft.”  [they omitted Russian built Libyan gas artillery shells ("g-shells"). They just happen to match the size used by Syria so any use there would look like Syria did it. The casus belli for war... -AK]  In late April, an SA-7 missile under the control of al-Qaeda may have narrowly missed a Russian passenger plane.

In closing...Have you noticed the strange sympathy for Egypt's ousted Morsi on CNN?  Why would CNN cry foul about the overthrow of a known Nazi linked leader of Egypt?  Aren't Nazis (and the Muslim Brotherhood for that matter) the enemy of Jews everywhere?  Wolff Blitzer gets a chubby off camera in the Situation Room, between Viagra and BP ads, every time Israel gets threatened and war looms.  So why they sympathy for Morsi? Unless maybe Morsi was the controlled opposition?  Wolff was very disappointed when that Israel/Iran war didn't materialize a few months ago.   

Or maybe just maybe it isn't about nations and wars, but about the strife and suffering that enables a few to profit and control humanity at the expense of everyone else?

Late Addition: http://www.infowars.com/bombshell-evidence-syrian-rebels-carried-out-gas-attack/

Read More