"Mission Accomplished?" Yeppers! A 'Wag The Dog' Show To Divert Attention

"BWAHAHAHA! I wanted my nice, new and smart missiles to clobber them Russians too!"

"We are tethered to a buffoon. He rages and veers, spreading ugliness, like an oil slick smothering everything in its viscous mantle. He’s about to bomb Syria. He’s not about to bomb Syria. His attention span is nonexistent. He attacks the foundations of our Republic: an independent judiciary, a free press, truth itself. His cabinet looks terrorized, the way Saddam Hussein’s once did.

President Donald Trump is dangerous. The main things mitigating the danger are his incompetence and cowardice. We live in a time that teaches how outrage can turn to a shrug, how the unthinkable repeated over and over can induce moral numbness, how a madman’s manic certainties can overwhelm reason.....Trump’s main war, beyond all the military bluster, is on truth. "  - Roger Cohen in NY Times, Saturday

When the corporo-media blabbered about Trump announcing "Mission accomplished!" after his Friday night fireworks display in Syria,  I had to settle down after howling with laughter for nearly a full minute, as wifey can attest. Why? Because those were the same dumbass words used by bumbling birdbrain Gee Dumbya Bush on an aircraft carrier - before the reality of what he started in Iraq came back to bite him in the proverbial butt.

In  the Weekend WSJ  piece 'Pentagon Urges Caution On Syria Strike', (p.A6) we read the supposed move to strike was after:  "Mr Trump was moved by images of children with foam bubbling from their mouths, aides said."                                                                             

Give me a break. When all is said and done Trump cares more about his night time cheese burger not being undercooked than those gassed kids  foaming at the mouth in Douma.    Sorry, but at 71 - and having investigated a lot of political chicanery (as well as political assassinations) over the past five decades.   I am way too cynical a person to swallow any codswallop churned out by  "aides" quoted in the mainstream media.  So why the hell would I blandly accept that the lying thug occupying the White House suddenly found grace,  humanity and a moral conscience in response to the awful scenes of gassed Syrian kids? 

Nope, this  Friday night fireworks farce - which was almost entirely cosmetic - was all about using crass deflection to take the heat and spotlight of the media off  Trump, given the latest Mueller probe revelations.   If you need a template, Google  "Wag the Dog".  That's where this "show strike" sits.   Wait. Did I just write "show strike"? Yes, I did, after reading those exact words in the Weekend WSJ  piece .To wit:

"The military had identified potential windows for strikes including one Thursday night.  Gen. Mattis cancelled them out of concerns that anything other than a 'show strike'  risked broader escalation with the Russians in particular."

Got that? So despite Trump’s tough language,  e.g. "Get ready, Russia! The missiles will be coming!", Dotard's only  option - short of possible nuclear war-  was one with no genuine punch to damage Assad’s broader war machine.  Or  negate his government’s command and control of its forces - i.e.  beyond its chemical weapons. This is backed up by the post-strike reports  (Denver Post, April,, 14, p 14A) of Syrians pouring into the streets chanting cries of conquest at "the West's failed efforts to subdue them."   We also learned that hundreds danced and waved in the streets of Damascus Saturday morning. And why wouldn't they,  given those cruise missile strikes did nothing to really take out Assad's forces, e.g. which had since occupied Douma?

 Nor did they take out the  Syrians' most substantial military assets - including jet fighters- which had been rapidly moved into protected bunkers after idiot Trump tweeted his threats to strike days in advance.  (Yes, some of the Tomahawk missiles did eradicate the residue of chlorine gas left in drums. But let's try to remember the chlorine was one of the items Assad was permitted to keep after last year's strike, and there is no real evidence - e.g. from blood samples of purported victims - that a nerve agent like Sarin was used.)

In the same (WSJ) piece we also learned Trump was upset and "unhappy"   because "he had been pushing for an attack that would not only punish the Syrian regime but also exact a price from two of its international patrons, Russia and Iran."   The meathead had to be informed by Mattis and the other generals of the risk of accidentally killing hundreds of Russians and starting a wider conflict, even nuclear war. (See also, 'Trump Bowed to Pentagon Restraint', WSJ today, p. A1)

Clearly, Dotard never learned or read about the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. However, another real possibility is that this unglued mutt wanted to make an example of a strike on Russian military  interests to "prove" there was no Russian collusion.  I.e. "How could I have colluded with 'em if I just lobbed missiles at 'em?"   Taking us all for morons.

But the generals' persistence is precisely why the attack ended up a "show strike'.  So when Doturd blabbed "This was a precisely executed strike"  - well yeah, if you regard it in the sense of  a precisely executed  "nothing burger" show strike, careful to avoid hitting Russian targets. And let me make it abundantly clear here, for anyone slow on the uptake, that I was absolutely NOT rooting for serious target strikes, or any at all! I wanted the imp to go before congress for an authorization like Obama did way back when, as opposed to using some canned executive authorization based on 9/11. As Sen. Tim Kaine put it this morning, on CBS Early Show:

"The president is wrong about being backed by the Constitution. This was an illegal military act. It is one I would have likely supported if he brought it to congress. I mean, we have a president not a king.  And it's the Constitution which says it is congress which gets to declare war not the president.

What the president can do is defend the United States against imminent attack. But if it's a matter of going on offense, against a sovereign nation of Syria, he's got to come to congress."

 Sen. Kaine also made pointed reference to the fact there is  no overarching strategy, no long term goals that the Trump bunch has defined.  These, he added, are what determines whether a military response makes sense or not. In other words, these one off missile show strikes merely disclose Trump and his gang are ad libbing.  Or perhaps trying to get simpletons to believe he won't tolerate crossing "red lines", but Obama would.

But anyway, given Friday night's fireworks were basically....well, fireworks (at $1 m a pop), there is  unlikely to be any change in the overall balance of forces in Syria seven years into its bloody civil war.   The only real way out of the morass, as one commentator on MSNBC put it days before,  is for Trump to sit down with his pal Putin and work things out.  This is given that Putin basically controls all the forces the U.S. opposes.

What has most astounded me in the aftermath of Friday's night's show is when I read how Trump's favorable ratings had gone up to rival those in his first 100 days, making me wonder how much lower the nation's average I.Q. had dipped. (Wifey estimated just two ticks above "moron" level.) The fools who've been polled to enhance Dotard's approval seem not have processed that a  degenerate mutant isn't "moved" by any sights or scenes of human misery because: a) he really doesn't see any misery other than in reflections of his own ego, and b)  a psychopath lacks any capacity for empathy - which would be required to act on a genuine moral basis. Hence, he lacks any moral compass or conscience, operating instead solely out of a premoral mind and narcissism. That is, his only concerns are immediate and self- gratifying.  He saw the images of the kids foaming mouths-  from the chlorine gas - and decided his ego would be gratified if he used their plight as justification for a fireworks strike on Syria. This self-serving action would  then take the media spotlight  (and scrutiny) off him. Case closed.

So, the motivation for this cruise missile show strike was clearly to gain a wag the dog distraction.  Any person of basic sentience  and intellect, who can read and process analytically,  should be able to see this. You don't need  a Mensa level I.Q.,  or shouldn't.  Especially after it was revealed that the Mueller investigation now has evidence that  Michael  Cohen really did visit Prague in 2016 to meet with the Russkies, as the Steele Dossier had documented.

Yes, we are learning more and more of the Steele dossier's validity with each passing day and you can be assured the piss segment of that document will also be verified at some point. To recap:

"Trump's perverted conduct in Moscow (2013) included hiring the presidential suite of the Ritz Carlton Hotel. where he knew President and Mrs. Obama (whom he hated) had  stayed on one of their official trips to Russia, and defiling the bed where they had slept by employing a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers'  (urination) show in front of him.   The hotel was known to be under FSB control with microphones and concealed cameras in all the main rooms to record anything they wanted to."

There is no reason at all to doubt this account - despite the fact the breathless media has declared it the most contentious (and "salacious") part of the dossier. The reason is that the reported behavior (from Steele's  "Source E") is perfectly compatible with Trump's psychological profile of malignant narcissism, sexual libertinism and vengeful payback. It is indeed exactly what this POS would do to a bed which he knew the Obamas had slept in. And moreover, this behavior is totally consistent with that of a loathsome asshole who brags about grabbing pussies.

In many respects, one might use the metaphor of Trump grabbing the nation's "pussy" Friday night to distract it from his looming legal problems, and especially the news in the wake of the Cohen bust.   And why wouldn't he,   given the tidal wave of negative news flooding in, right up until Dotard ordered the strike? As Max Boot put it in the Sunday  WaPo:

"Friday ... brought news that Cohen is under criminal investigation by the Justice Department for a litany of offenses. That same day, the deputy finance chairman of the Republican National Committee resigned after the disclosure that he had paid $1.6 million in hush money to a former mistress, a Playboy playmate, whom he had impregnated. The broker of the hush money was none other than Cohen.

It is hard to imagine how Trump can do his job — for example, approving military strikes on Syria — while drowning in this rising tide of scandal. There is an old tradition, more honored in theory than fact, that issues of national security are kept separate from domestic politics, but Trump is utterly incapable of making any such distinction. For him, everything is political — and all politics is personal."

What has in the end been fortuitous for us all, the remaining sane citizens of this country, is that Trump did not actuate the wider strikes he really wanted,, namely on the Russians. Had he been enabled and done so (and make no mistake John "Ripper" Bolton was prompting him) we might not be having this conversation at all.  Let's thank our lucky stars or whatever,  that Gen. Jim  "Mad Dog" Mattis is still in the White House to exert some level of oversight on this impetuous, psychopathic, septuagenarian toddler.

See also:

‘Mission Accomplished!’ But What Is the Mission?

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/chris-floyd/78689/alchemical-reactions-transmuting-death-dealing-dung-into-pr-gold

Excerpt:

If  the US/UK/France really believed the building they targeted (and hit) in a heavily populated civilian area of Damascus was actually making chemical weapons, what do they think would have happened if all that toxic material had been dispersed by explosions throughout the surrounding neighborhoods? Hundreds if not thousands of civilians would have died. So either the "Western powers" knowingly risked killing thousands of innocent people -- or else they knew the building was not actually a chemical weapons facility.

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-margolis/78683/playing-with-nuclear-matches

And:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/78705/7-questions-about-the-syria-airstrikes-that-aren-t-being-asked

Could Dotard Get Us Into A Nuclear War With Russia After The FBI Raid On His Scumball Lawyer?

"We haven’t been in a safe space since Nov. 8, 2016, but we’re in especially dangerous territory now. President Trump seems closer than ever to decisions that could plunge the country into crisis. And there’s nothing in his bearing or behavior to suggest that he cares all that much about sparing America that chaos and pain."  Frank Bruni, 'Trump Seethes And The Rest Of Us Should Tremble', NY Times

Many pundits tonight are asking the question posed in the header, given Trump is now feeling the "hangman's noose" tightening ever more snugly around his fat, orange neck. This after the office and home of his scumball lawyer (Michael Cohen) was raided by the FBI earlier today.  After he learned about it he ranted on in the White House for a solid nine minutes even ruminating that he "might have to see about doing something with Mueller".   No, you degenerate turd, that would be a very bad idea, if you recall Nixon trying the same thing (in the "Saturday Night massacre")

Besides, Trump is barking out of his fat ass. It wasn't Mueller who executed the warrants on Cohen, it was the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New York, a REPUBLICAN! The warrants were also approved by a federal judge and higher ups in the Dept. Of Justice. (All Republicans.)

But this is how a crazed, cornered rat behaves and speaks including the fulsome, hyper balderdash spouted that the FBI "broke into"  Cohen's office. No they did not, asswipe. They merely fulfilled the execution of a lawful search warrant.  The physical intervention, as opposed to merely issuing a placid subpoena, was because there's either a time limit on the evidence or belief in the possibility of destruction of evidence..

Doturd also yelped - like the fascist authoritarian he is - that this was "an attack on the country". No, again, Mr. Resident, it was a lawful exercise designed to seize key evidence from a single scumball (sharing your degenerate personality) before it could be destroyed.  Do not, I repeat, do not, conflate the country  with you and your lackey rat Cohen.  As NY Times columnist Frank Bruni put it:

"’A lawful raid on his attorney's office and hotel room is what prompted the president to use those immensely weighted words. They’re a signal — make that a siren — of how cornered he feels, how monstrously large his belief in his own persecution has grown and what a dangerous situation America is in.."

Indeed, the talk among panelists appearing on 'All In' this evening is the extent to which the raid on Cohen will impact Trump's decision making in terms of a possible military strike on Assad's or Putin's forces, given a chemical (likely chlorine) attack that killed at least 40 Syrians.   The consensus is that a Dotard under severe pressure will not think the response through and could very well act precipitously.    As one panelist put it: "This is a most dangerous time. I would be very afraid."

As I noted before, a megalomaniacal narcissist  like Trump - to preserve himself - could easily start a war to blow up everything and everyone, to preserve himself, in his own perverted mind.

In the book, 'The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump' clinical psychologist  Michael J. Tansey informs us (p. 121):

"Although there are several areas in which DT's particular version of personality disorder is vital to understand, none is more compelling or terrifying than his control of the nuclear codes.  Surpassing the devastation of climate, health care, education, diplomacy, social services, freedom of speech, and liberty and justice for all, nothing is more incomprehensible than the now plausible prospect of an all -out nuclear war."

Adding (ibid.):

"Because of this very real existential threat, it is absolutely urgent that we comprehend the titanic differences between a president who is merely 'crazy like a fox' versus one I have termed crazy like crazy (possessing core grandiose and paranoid delusions disconnected from factual reality."

The evidence Dotard is literally crazy like crazy is abundant and as Chris Hayes' panelists put it, "never crazier than when he is under pressure" - meaning the risk of compromised decision making is at maximum after the FBI raid on Cohen. While a normal mind might be able to sequester its emotions, e.g.  in reaction to the FBI raids and the Mueller investigation,  from a response to the Syrian chemical attack, this is something of which Trump is incapable.  This is given at such moments he literally has the mentality of a psychopathic toddler- so all emotions become intermixed with potential disastrous results.  Worse, his overwhelming instinct to overreact is now going to be reinforced by another psychopath, John Bolton, recently appointed as national security adviser.

It is true that Trump also launched a cruise missile strike  last year (April 7) after a nerve agent attack by Assad,  But now, one year later, there are hundreds more Russian troops as well as dozens of Russian jet fighters which - if hit, even accidentally- could set off a conflagration.   Given Trump lacks the decision making capacity to respond in any rational and balanced way, every manjack on the planet ought to be afraid. Given the extent to which the FBI raid is clearly messing with his brain, we ought to be damned well terrified- given those raw emotions could well spill over into a Syrian response decision..

This is especially after the departure of the few remaining  adults that had been keeping the giant orange hued toddler's Id at bay. But which now stands to be released under pressure, with even the two remaining generals (Kelly and Mattis)  reduced to  muted stage props.

Let us all hope the asshole in the White House, this illegitimate traitor,  doesn't do anything reckless that could have far greater consequencies than just a few dozen killed.  A most inauspicious sign was one of Trump's first tweets after learning that a Russian Defense Minister vowed counter strikes on U.S. and other aircraft carriers and other "sources of launch":

Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and “smart!” 

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/cody-fenwick/78594/heres-why-the-fbi-raided-trump-lawyer-michael-cohens-offices

Putin Correct to Warn About American Exceptionalism

I know it's "politically incorrect" (at least American-style) to applaud and assert a foreign leader is spot -on in his perceptions, but no matter what the blowhard punditocracy says, Putin nailed it in his NY Times op -ed  ('A Plea for Caution from Russia') today.  Among the things Putin wrote, with which no sane or rational person could disagree (especially after last night's NBC News segment showing radical jihadis staging in Turkey then moving into Syria with IEDs etc.):

"A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism."

After seeing the pro-Syrian opposition jihadis whipping a couple for marrying non-Muslims on the same NBC segment, I believe it! And the U.S. would be dumb as a sack of hammers to oust Assad by helping these "rebels" - when it will likely be a replay of their dopey ignorant move helping Osama and his rebels in the 1980s, to harass the Soviets who had occupied Afghanistan. Stay with the devil you know, in other words, instead of unleashing tens of thousands of devils you don't. As one of the jihadis interviewed on the NBC spot put it:

"We want the Americans and Assad forces to fight, then when Assad is weak we can move in!"

Really? Hope Obama is paying attention here!

Putin went on:

"It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear program and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa."

And:

"No one doubts there was poison gas used in Syria, but there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army but by opposition forces... to provoke intervention by their powerful foreign patrons, who would be siding with the fundamentalists"

Well, where have we seen this before? In Afghanistan, in the 80s, as I already noted, siding with Osama bin Laden to harass and punish the Russians. And more recently, in Egypt, siding with the Muslim Brotherhood president Morsi.....well, how did that turn out?

Putin then hit the chord with American exceptionalism, a meme American Neoliberal Presidents have fed to their charges since the Reagan era - trying to take the minds of the hoi polloi off the vast and expanding economic inequality that's emerged as a direct result of their allowing and enabling the war state's meddling ....from Reagan in Nicaragua and Honduras, to Bush I in the Gulf (after encouraging Saddam's reckless expansion), to Clinton in Kosovo, to Bush II in Afghanistan and Iraq - when the 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. But then Bush's oilmen had special deals with the Saudis, so couldn't go after them- hence allowing the bin Laden family to leave the country in the wake of the attacks.  Oh, and Obama now wanting to meddle in Syria if the Russians "aren't serious".

Putin wrote:

"It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional , whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy"

According to the corpora-media blow drieds this a.m.  the WH dismissed it as "posturing" but they shouldn't. Whether really posturing or not, the words contain more than the proverbial grain of truth - in fact, they contain a store house of truth.

One can debate about whether Putin was "posturing" or "hypocritical" in lecturing on democracy, but he was dead on in terms of sounding the dangers of American exceptionalism.

Exceptionalism refers to the virulent meme that Americans and the U.S. are somehow "special" in history and hence, are charged with acting "special" on the world stage. That ranges from valuing American lives much more than foreign ones - embodied in the U.S. refusal to sign on to Protocol 1 of the Geneva Conventions - which explains how military strikes and aggression can be carried out without being mindful of collateral damage, to indiscriminately messing in other nations' because the U.S.  feels it's a sole superpower's "right" to do so.

In regard to the devaluation of foreign lives one can look at travesties from meddling in Honduras and Guatemala - see e.g.  http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB4/  leading to hundreds of thousands of deaths, as well as extended internal instability to the malignant  exceptionalist invasions sponsored by the Bushies in the name of the so-called "Bush doctrine".   These, when the historical savvy person examines them, little different from the Nazi ideology of Lebensraum, see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

The point is, the maniacal Bushie Neocons believed their own puffed up bullshit that this nation is "exceptional" and has the right to lord it over all others, by intervening and "policing" any time it chooses. No bigger pile of horse shit has ever been conceived as national policy and Americans would do well to reject it.

Does that mean the rational American rejects ALL wars? Of course not! There ARE just wars, just as there are unjust and ILLEGAL wars!  World War II was a just war because first, Americans were attacked by the Japanese Empire at Pearl Harbor, and second the Axis Powers and especially Japan and Nazi Germany, were bent on global domination. Not to have responded would have invited a nightmare world we can only imagine today.

Vietnam, by contrast, was an ILLEGAL war! The conflict was started on a pretext, i.e. the Gulf of Tonkin incident,  wherein the Turner Joy and Maddox were allegedly attacked without provocation in the summer of 1964. The claim of baby killer LBJ was that the attack(s) were initiated by the North Vietnamese.  But in 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4.

The report stated regarding August 2:

“At 1505G, Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G, the Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first”

and regarding August 4:

“It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night. [...] In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2”


In other words, the U.S. "exceptionalist" aggressors used it as a pretext to demand the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and launch a war that killed nearly 58,000.

Here's advice for every real red -blooded American, as opposed to the paper patriots, including cook and bottle washers who pound their chests for having "served their country" but never saw more than a soup spoon and kettle: Don't trust anything any leader says if he uses the words "exceptional" as applied to you the citizen or the country as a whole, or  employs manipulative bafflegab throwaways like "freedom" and especially "defending our freedoms".

Oh, and if he asserts:  "Y'er either with us or against us!" Tell him to fuck himself!

See also:  http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/51589/the-presidents-speech-reveals-he-has-never-seen-war

With Russian Warships Headed for Syria - There's NOTHING Obama Can Say to Convince Us To Start A War!

The Russian warship 'Moskva' in a Ukrainian Black Sea port, already headed for Syria.

According to The Christian Science Monitor (Sept. 6) at least three Russian warships are  headed for Syrian waters, and more might be on the way, including a frigate and another landing ship. The ships are coming from the Black Sea Fleet base in Sevastopol, according to CBS News

Why so much sea power? ?

The Kremlin’s chief of staff says it’s to evacuate Russians from Syria if a looming US air attack makes that necessary. But don't be so sure. While not yapping any threats, it is clear to experienced Russian observers they are more than ready for a fight, and a final face down against a super power which has thrown its weight around way too long.   The Monitor cites the Institute for the Study of War, on its Syria blog, that the Russian spy ship - the Priazovye - carries both active (radar) and passive (sonar) sensors that would enable it to possibly determine the location of the US ships. This alone would allow them to transmit locations to the Iranians in order to more accurately fire their own missiles at the ships - in retaliation. So the Russians can become involved, even if not directly.

Is there much to fret over? You better believe it, despite dweezil John Miller - former spook and now useless spook and pro-NSA mouthpiece - blabbering this morning on CBS' Early Show that there really shouldn't be any Syrian "retaliation" because the U.S. is only administering a limited "punishment" blow and why would Assad risk more retaliation if his proxies or himself launches counter attacks?

Well, uh, you dumb fucking dildo, because we are launching an unlawful act of war - an aggressive action against a state that has not threatened our interests at all!  Not killed one American!  You think after  lobbing over 150 Tomahawks, and dropping hundreds of tons of bombs using B1 and B52  bombers- likely killing hundreds,  the Syrians, Iranians, Russians will go quietly into that good night and suck it up? What are you, stupid?  They will unleash everything, as Assad asserted this morning in an interview with Charlie Rose  - and that could range from Iranian missile attacks on U.S. ships, to Syrian missile attacks on Israel, to terror attacks by Hezbollah and more blowback for us - as if we needed more terrorists to hamper our civil liberties.

But the worst fear is some accidental hit on Russian ships provoking an initial massive conventional response, which in turn could escalate to a limited nuclear war with tactical nukes - then to a full scale nuclear war.  Having lived through the Cuban Missile crisis back in October, 1962, I see the same perils - with U.S. and Russian ships perilously close to each other, and the chance of any misfire or miscalculation leading to worse consequences. Fortunately, nuclear war didn't erupt then because cooler heads prevailed - including John Kennedy facing down two Joint Chiefs: Lyman Lemnitzer and Curtis Lemay, who wanted him to go full bore bombing and invading Cuba. Had he been stupid enough to do that, we wouldn't be having this conversation - the planet would still be a pile of smoldering ruins and ash.

But it appears Obama and his bunch, including "Lurch" Kerry, haven't learned from past history. And so Obama wants to make a "case" tomorrow night for striking Syria.....and maybe launching WWIII. The man of "hope and change" finally can be seen for what he really is, a warmonger, no different from Bush I or Bush II.  As Prof. Hillary Mann Leverett, professor at American University, put it: "I want my money back!" 

Look, with the potential for global disaster now the highest it's been since perhaps October, 1962, there is really nothing Obama can say, no amount of rhetoric, and no amount of pseudo-evidence to convince us to start a war we likely can't control and won't be able to stop once it starts. We have been mired in two "wars" (actually occupations) the past 12 years, and it is now THIS nation that needs rebuilding and desperately! Besides, there is a debt ceiling limit soon to arrive within weeks. Do we really have the funds, resources to wage another prolonged battle against Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia? I think not.

The buzz this morning is that Obama won't even wait until the House vote (with the real people's representatives) but will act after the Senate vote passes a fig leaf "resolution"  - which it likely will. Who can forget The Treason of the Senate by David Graham Phillips? And it's as true today as it was back in 1906, given the Senate represents millionaires who have little in common with the people. It is really  the House of Representatives that are the true people's reps - so if Obama just ignores them, he's flouting the Constitution.


Obama seems not to be aware of the potential to destroy whatever legacy he still has left, by an irrational act designed merely to: a) teach a lesson to Iran (which might be next) and b) make sure everyone knows he ain't foolin' when he invokes  "red lines"!

What I want to know is what happened to the guy that received the Nobel Peace Prize? Maybe he ought to think of giving it back.

As for me, I will be sure to watch some movies on the tube when Obama is making his spiel. There is nothing he can say which will convince me to change my mind - and I believe that holds for millions of other citizens too. More hot air and propaganda we don't need!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/dave-lindorff/51536/white-house-lies-to-launch-the-next-illegal-war-there-is-no-justification-for-obama-s-war-on-syria

The U.S. : Rogue State or Global Citizen? The Jury Is Out

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough—more than enough—of war and hate and oppression."- John F. Kennedy, June 10, 1963 (Speech at American University)

In the horrific 1983 British film Threads, the nuclear destruction and termination of human civilization is effected after the U.S. and NATO intervene in Iran and exchanges lead to the accidental sinking of the Russian ship Kirov in the Straits of Hormuz.

Subsequently,  an accidental exchange of 2 tactical nuclear weapons (with radiation blowing over Pakistan) leads to escalation and a full scale nuclear war  within 24 hrs.- with 3,000 megatons exchange (210 megatons on the UK alone).

After the final exchange, when 80 megatons land on Sheffield, UK, the focus is on a family huddled inside their shock -wave blasted home as the radioactive debris descends - leading to non stop vomiting by all the members, then deaths of the parents (after losing all their hair and skin sores) then the daughter giving birth (9 months later) to a monster, that can best be described as a 'Rosemary's Baby' look- alike. The final scene shows the baby after its live birth, porcine features with rat-like ears and teeth exposed on its epidermis- while the poor, malnourished girl who just delivered it screams at the top of her lungs.

'Threads'  is not a film for the squeamish, nor was it meant to be. It was intended to be a cautionary tale against rash human actions - laden with arrogance and hubris - with the perpetrators unable to see ahead to the consequences of their  actions. It was intended to send the message: "Look, you idiots! It doesn't matter whether YOU think you're in the right for any given action or not! If by god you fuck it up - launch an aggressive strike with unintended consequences, there may be no turning back for any of us!"

Such warnings apply now as a congress all too willing in the past to be 'yes men' to the executive, is once more being drumbeaten into taking reckless action for "humanitarian purposes". But what kind of humanitarian purpose will it be if 1 million more Syrian refugees are created by our Tomahawk attacks, and they pour into adjacent Turkey and Jordan which already are at their tipping points?  You call that humanitarian? It's stupidity! Plus, we will likely kill as many or more via collateral damage as perished in the gas attacks (And contrary to the nattering nabobs - including liberals like Krystal Ball on MSNBC - we still don't know WHO was responsible!)

The money consumed by destroying those cruise missiles ($1 billion est.) by lobbing them into Syria ought to be used instead to provide support for the 2 million refugees already in Turkey and Jordan. This was the suggestion yesterday by Rep. Alan Grayson (FL) as he addressed a media simpleton on MSNBC who tried to compare not taking action to the Chamberlain appeasement at Munich. Well, Grayson raked the Neolib twerp's ass over the coals, drawing attention to his historical attention deficit disorder, for that one! (The correct comparison, as Grayson noted, was the run-up to the Iraq fiasco.)

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer of the Center for Advanced Defense Studies(appearing on MSNBC's 'The Cycle)  laid it on the line this afternoon that NO the U.S. isn't "following the world" (on any issuance of a "red line")  to address any humanitarian concerns in Syria,  it is pushing the world to follow its lead. But this could have severe repercussions because no matter what we believe, our aggression and attacks will be regarded by the Syrians (as well as the Russians, Iran and other actors) as an act of war- inviting full retaliation which could assume myriad forms - from massive cyber attacks, knocking down power grids,  to Iranian missile attacks on the U.S. fleet, to Russian bombing of U.S. destroyers in retaliation for any collateral damage.

Kerry basically said there's nothing to fret over re: Russia, but he's an idiot. How he has managed to get to the position of Secretary of State is beyond me. I guess politics and friendly Repukes (who relish his MA Senate seat) can make a difference. Anyway, as Lt. Col. Shaffer said, neither the Syrians or others affected will take any attack lying down. Besides, there are many ways the Russians could get involved, from an accidental strike on their naval base, to the accidental killing of their technicians who help maintain the Syrian air force. Think Putin wouldn't retaliate for killing Russian techs or other personnel? Think again!

Then there are the 50,000 Iranians who also are there in country, helping Assad's forces. Kill any of them and also watch as the Iranians retaliate. Who knows in what ways, but bear in mind, as with 9/11, the blowback can take years to unfold. Ask Chalmers Johnson who predicted (in Blowback) the 9/11 attacks because of our aggressive Middle East policies. Another thing, as Howard Fineman asked on the same MSNBC segment: 'Since when did the Democratic Party become the War Party'?

The notion we can just hurl cruise missiles into Syria with impunity and do whatever we like  (as self-proclaimed cop of the world- lacking any moral authority to be said 'cop')  is such a noxious, insane notion it is beyond the pale and makes us a rogue state, above the law - certainly above international law-  no matter what congress authorizes or not.

Lt. Col. Shaffer admonished Obama for his decision to go it alone, even with just the puny cover of congressional authorization. He stated that what must be done, to show the world we are not above the law - international law- is to take our case to the UN Security Council and behind the scenes make the political moves to get China and Russia invested in the proposal that it's in THEIR best interests to get Assad removed from power. But....contrary to asshole and idiot Bill Krystal (one of the foremost instigators of regime change in Iraq) it is NOT OUR business to regime change Assad.

But if we fire off a missile attack on Syria without UN concurrence,  we will expose ourselves as the outlaw rogue state everyone in the world believes we are. Worse, we will help to create a scenario that will likely quickly get out of control no matter how many supposed precautions we take.

In that case, a near future such as depicted on Threads may well be our sorry- ass lot. 

Brits Say 'NO!' to Syria Strike: NO Fake "Coalitions" This Time

William Rivers Pitt: concludes that attacking Syria would be one of the stupidest acts U.S. militarists could do, even with a fake coalition. I agree.

"Surely it is a basic principle that evidence precedes decision, not that decision precedes evidence!"- Edward Milibrand, British Opposition Leader yesterday

The British, stung once by bogus "WMD" crappola (by Tony Blair and Dumbya Bush) before the illegal Iraq invasion, are not about to be played again: "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice and shame on me." Well, they won't be made fools of again.  And who can forget Colin Powell volunteering for the Bushistas' 'dog and pony' show at the UN where he trotted out alleged photos showing missiles and chemical weapons stores. Obviously, trying to emulate the actual U2 spy photos from October, 1962 that really showed Russian missiles in Cuba.

Well, that dog won't hunt again! Brit PM David Cameron had to accept defeat with the parliamentary vote yesterday, though he said he wouldn't apologize to Obama. Why should he? It was a democratic vote, something this country has long forgotten since awarding carte blanche power to the commander-in -chief to single handedly launch aggressive strikes via the misbegotten "war resolution" bunkum passed during Bush II's first term (after 9/11 when the whole nation was in the grip of hysteria and fear). All while a pussified congress rolled over like beaten whelps, as they did with the egregious "Patriot Act".

Now, of course, having found some measure of testosterone, congress seems to be demanding to have a say and final authorization for any military action. Well, a tad too late, wouldn't you say - given you allowed your "oversight" to lapse on so many other major "laws" that were executive driven?

Obama, meanwhile, having somehow been converted to a "Bush" clone over the past 5 years, seems to want to dive in, cruise missiles blazing. But make no mistake that misfired or misguided cruise missiles could kill as many as the recent chemical attack on Damascenes. Another worry, Russian warships are ominously reported to be steering toward the Syrian coast.  Does Obama really want to risk an altercation with the Russians that could get out of control? (Let us recall that Syria is a primary client state of Russia and Russia has major defense and other investments there - they won't just stand by while Uncle Sam unleashes dozens of missiles!)

Blogger, writer William Rivers Pitt, in his article: 'War on Syria:Twenty Pounds of Stupid in a Ten Pound Bag', notes the level of folly involved in barging in there alone, no matter what specious "lawful" pretext is found, or what phony "rhetorical coalitions" are invoked. He writes:

"I'm just going to throw this out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up: instead of attacking Syria, how about we don't attack Syria?

Crazy, I know; this is America, after all, and our presidents like nothing more than to flip a few cruise missiles at other countries, combined with a few bombing sorties for good measure, because it's a hell of a lot easier than actual statecraft. Besides, it looks good on television, and all those meanies in Congress can't accuse the Commander in Chief of not doing anything. Oh, also, cruise missiles and bombs cost a lot, so if we pull the trigger on Syria, someone will get paid handsomely.

What ho, this we call "diplomacy," right?

Flatten a few buildings, blow some children sideways out of their kitchens during breakfast, take a victory lap on the Sunday morning talk shows...what could possibly go wrong?

Quite a bit, as it turns out.

-------

He goes on to note that unlike the Iraq debacle (which violated Nuremberg Principle VI against pre-emptive war) , there does seem to be fairly impressive  evidence to suggest that chemical weapons were used in Syria. Doctors Without Borders seems pretty convinced it happened, "despite the fact that the use of such weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense, given the fickle nature of chemical weapons and how closely concentrated his own forces were near the area of the attack."

Which introduces the possibility  - not to be too hastily dismissed - that the rebels themselves (likely al Qaeda elements within them) staged a "false flag" operation using these nerve agents to try and lure the U.S. into the mess. Unreal? Maybe, but not outside of the realm of possibility - and given how al Qaeda under bin Laden made no bones about the fact their prime objective is to bankrupt our nation with military expenses. So we need to tread carefully, not barge in, missiles blazing as the necrophilious would have us do. One must ask the question, 'Cui bono?' - who benefits?


Now, what if the UN inspectors find evidence: a) there was indeed a chemical attack, and b) the munitions used originated with the Syrian army? Then, enormous pressure will be brought to bear on President Obama to "punish" the Assad regime with a military attack of some kind. Obama himself may also be his own worst enemy, as he's too aware of too many of his past "red line in the sand" comments  - so may worry he will be perceived as weak if he makes no move. But this sort of action on the basis or maintaining bravado and appearances is a bad move and not likely to bring positive results.

William Rivers Pitt again, on why - no matter what the UN inspectors find- it's not a wise move to attack Syria even in a "limited" fashion:
" The short version of why such a course of action is an invitation to catastrophe: Syria is no paper tiger, and is very much capable of both defending itself as well as attacking American interests in the region if provoked. Syria and Iran are strategic allies and are pledged to each other's mutual defense, which means all the Iranian missile sites in the mountains above the Persian Gulf coast could launch their missiles in retaliation...and those Iranian missiles, by the by, are advanced enough to spoof Aegis radar systems, which means thousands of American service members currently manning our warships in the Gulf could very quickly be delivered into a watery grave.

Russia is also a staunch ally of Syria, and could also be provoked into getting involved by backing Assad even more forcefully than they have to date. In essence, any attack on Syria could quickly escalate into a full-scale war that would further destabilize the region and quite probably lead to the kind of conflagration found in the last chapter of the Bible."

Another reason there's little upside is that Obama himself has conceded he's not after "regime change". Then what's the point? Any attack of the type contemplated will plausibly just enrage Assad's forces and make more chemical attacks likely - assuming he did them at all. After all, the planned strikes are not even against the chemical weapon storage depots - but rather the "supporting transport sites". Big deal! What if they miss and strike a school? What if a cruise missile goes awry and hits a Russian warship by mistake? All sorts of unintended consequences can transpire! Obama needs to be fully aware of them before taking any action.

Mr. Obama would do well to emulate John F. Kennedy in the most intense days of the October, 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, when his Joint Chiefs  - including Gen. Curtis LeMay - tried to pressure him into bombing Cuba and invading it. JFK stood back, examined the consequences, saw the folly of the move and resisted. Good thing he did since, as his former defense secretary Robert McNamara noted in a 1993 interview, had he committed such a precipitous action, some 93 odd nuclear -loaded IRBMs would have struck the eastern U.S. and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Now is the time for Obama to resist the Siren songs and pleas of the military industrial complex. Do we have his "back"? Yes, IF he resists and doesn't succumb to military foolishness that could have dire consequences for us all.

Make no mistake the Syrian situation is dicey, but that means there are no easy answers. Yes, the apparent nerve gas attack on Syrian civilians was vile, but killing 1,000 more as collateral damage, to "teach a lesson" for the chemical killing of the earlier 1,000 is not exactly the epitome of logic., sobriety or judicious leadership.

What is really needed here? A full UN Resolution allowing action, not a unilateral, Pax Americana mission! If the UN Resolution is not forthcoming - then no action can be allowed. There has to be more this time than a flimsy rhetorical cover. The possible consequences are too horrendous to agree to anything else. The U.S. -lone  superpower or not - must be accountable to a higher organization, and that's what the UN was set up to be!