With the debate reaching its cruise speed, it is no longer time to hear Baroness Ashton talking with the fake UK’s PM nose reiterating that « the EU is a 100% sure Assad’s regime is responsible for the 21st August killings by chemical weapons ». We have heard much of that story without a single proof, for so many days now…
We’ll stick with Van Rompuy version.
It was not wise to the French President to jump in, like the UK’s PM, without taking time for reflection and respect of the international law. Baroness Ashton seems to brush this away and, her attempt to sell us the idea that the new position of president Hollande, asking to wait for the UN’s team conclusions was his first stand, is in line with the lying process that has been going on to advocate Syrian military intervention. Unsalable. Being responsible also means recognizing the shift of positions.
We are fed up of those politicians saying black the day before and the day after, announcing superbly the contrary in total denial of what they were standing for previously.
What is the president of America do with this ? Which comes first ? The vote of the American Congress or the conclusions of the UN’s team ? If the congress says yes – in a last minute change of mind – will this mean a green light for the president to go military in Syria, ignoring the UN ?
On the contrary, if the congress says ‘no’ – the previsible outcome as for now – what will be the translation of the vote ? Is the president going to respect Democracy and stop his bid or will he decide to go in Syrian on his own ? Really, should the second option of a president going war in Syria, despite a no vote of the Congress occured, then it will be an abomination. I can’t imagine President Obama taking such an appalling decision.
I understand the uncomfortable position of the president with a red line which has lost momentum. But from there to induce the credibility of the president is on balance is a « travesty » : it is not about the president or any red line. It is about Democracy first. If the Congress says no, instead of whipping, may be this would signal the beginning of a new era for the international law in need of an urgent make-up.
Democracy is about Good Judgement, after a truly debate. This is no vain word. And McCain can tell you about this. WATCH: Constituents Lash Out At McCain Over Syria Intervention. In the National Memo. McCain is the guy I would like to play a party of poker with. The senator pushed president Obama in the Syrian mess and while the issue was being debated, he was just quietly playing Poker with his phone. Wooh. Syria, a game of poker : heads or tails !
Weekly Address: Calling for Limited Military Action in Syria. By the President.
Times ahead, we were questionning the simplification of Assad’s regime accusations. Take a moment to contemplate this :
Saudi Arabia’s “Chemical Bandar” behind the Chemical Attacks in Syria?
Nothing the US claims about what happened in Syria adds up. We are being asked to believe an illogical story, when it is much more likely that it was Israel and Saudi Arabia who enabled the Obama Administration to threaten Syria with war.
The Obama Administration’s intelligence report on Syria was a rehash of Iraq. “There are lots of things that aren’t spelled out” in the four-page document, according to Richard Guthrie, the former project head of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. One piece of evidence is the alleged interception of Syrian government communications, but no transcripts were provided.
Just as with the Obama Administration’s speeches which all fall short of conclusively confirming what happened, nothing was categorically confirmed in the intelligence report. Actually it comes across more as a superficial college or university student’s paper put together by wordsmiths instead of genuine experts on the subject.
Going in a circle, the report even depends on “unnamed” social media and accounts as sources of evidence or data. Lacking transparency, it states that “there are accounts from international and Syrian medical personnel, videos, witness accounts, thousands of social media reports from at least 12 different locations in the Damascus area, journalist accounts and reports from highly credible non-governmental organizations.”
Chances are that these unnamed sources are actually foreign-funded insurgents, Israeli media, Saudi media, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights – which includes fighters in the ranks of the insurgency and salutes Saudi Arabia as a model democracy – or the NGO Doctors Without Borders. These are the same sources that have been supporting the insurgency and pushing for regime change and military intervention in Syria.
Moreover, one of the main sources of the intelligence and communication interceptions that are supposed to be a smoking gun is none other than Israel, which is notorious for doctoring and falsifying evidence.
The US intelligence report also claims to have advanced knowledge about the plans to launch a chemical weapons attack several days before it happened. A leading expert on chemical weapons, Jean Pascal Zanders, who until recently was a senior research fellow at the European Union’s Institute for Security Studies, asks why the US government did not tell the world about it and issue warnings about a chemical attack at that time.
An Israeli-Saudi-US conspiracy?