MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Order today at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
Bild am Sonntag cites high-level German surveillance source suggesting Syrian president was not personally behind attacks
By Simon Tisdall and Josie Le Blond in Berlin, theguardian.com, 8 September 2013
President Bashar al-Assad did not personally order last month's chemical weapons attack near Damascus that has triggered calls for US military intervention, and blocked numerous requests from his military commanders to use chemical weapons against regime opponents in recent months, a German newspaper has reported , citing unidentified, high-level national security sources.
The intelligence findings were based on phone calls intercepted by a German surveillance ship operated by the BND, the German intelligence service, and deployed off the Syrian coast, Bild am Sonntag said. The intercepted communications suggested Assad, who is accused of war crimes by the west, including foreign secretary William Hague, was not himself involved in last month's attack or in other instances when government forces have allegedly used chemical weapons.
Assad sought to exonerate himself from the August attack in which hundreds died. "There has been no evidence that I used chemical weapons against my own people," he said in an interview with CBS.
But the intercepts tended to add weight to the claims of the Obama administration and Britain and France that elements of the Assad regime, and not renegade rebel groups, were responsible for the attack in the suburb of Ghouta, Bild said [....]
Comments
I'm pretty much in agreement with Schieffer. Its sad its deteriorated to this point.
by ocean-kat on Sun, 09/08/2013 - 10:07pm
Schieffer expresses the idea of a need for the U.S. to be believed when it threatens with its military. [His statement assumes Assad’s guilt] So now, even if Obama’s threat was not smart in this case, and even if following through on the threat in this particular case will not do any ‘good’, the follow through on the threat is still important so that future threats will be affective.
Andrew Bacevich has some thoughts on the whole damned mess that are worth considering.
A debate over the Syrian AUMF should encourage members of Congress -- if they’ve got the guts -- to survey this entire record of U.S. military activities in the Greater Middle East going back to 1980. To do so means almost unavoidably confronting this simple question: How are we doing? To state the matter directly, all these years later, given all the ordnance expended, all the toing-and-froing of U.S. forces, and all the lives lost or shattered along the way, is mission accomplishment anywhere in sight? Or have U.S. troops -- the objects of such putative love and admiration on the part of the American people -- been engaged over the past 30-plus years in a fool’s errand? How members cast their votes on the Syrian AUMF will signal their answer -- and by extension the nation’s answer -- to that question.
To okay an attack on Syria will, in effect, reaffirm the Carter Doctrine and put a stamp of congressional approval on the policies that got us where we are today. A majority vote in favor of the Syrian AUMF will sustain and probably deepen Washington’s insistence that the resort to violence represents the best way to advance U.S. interests in the Islamic world.”
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/175744/tomgram%3A_andrew_bacevich%2C_dra...
by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 5:14am
For me so far looks like an enormous #Obamafail, which gets worse every day. And when I go back and review past foreign policy where benefit of doubt was given, and use this new light (like Egypt,) it makes it even more depressing. And I think of the promise squandered, of what could have been done by someone with more talent a this. It's not like he wasn't received by the world with enormous positive attitude upon inauguration, quite the opposite, there was too little skepticism.
Then rumors of the Pentagon being very unhappy about this all makes it even more depressing, get creeps about LBJ dejas vus allover again decades of animosity between CIC and military.
I look at the whole picture, and start to see the professor trying to do the community organizer thing in foreign policy, promoting leading from behind. I am almost reminded of Occupy Wall Street theory of leadership.
But then I decided I've got to try to stop that sophistic thinking until all cards are played. I'll wait until he gives his speech to the public and U.N. report is in, see what they do. Try not to prejudge, watch for signs something else is going on instead of what I am prone to conclude.
(That's only if Kerry doesn't resign beforehand in frustration with the role he's been asked to play. )
P.S. I do agree with Maeillo that the one good thing that comes out of this so far is a precedent set with going to Congress for approval. Unfortunately, it's being done with a president that is lousy dealing with Congress. I'm way past the stage where he gets any further Mulligan's on that from me, I've concluded. I don't buy the excuse any longer that he's got a more difficult Congress than any other president. No way, that's just B.S., it's his lack of talent at leading. Clinton dealt with an impeachment trial, for crying out loud, and there are plenty of other examples. Executives were not meant to do "community organizing," and lead from behind, that's not what the executive role is.
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 11:42am
Note in Reuters coverage of the same, that there have also been conflicting leaks out of Germany; my bold to point it out. (Or maybe not conflicting, if you want to get into thinking about complicated conspiracy theories like which part of Assad's regime Hezbollah might be working with):
by artappraiser on Sun, 09/08/2013 - 10:17pm
by jollyroger on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 1:59am
And that he hasn't done something like that publicly says what? It's just a rhetorical question to provoke thought.
I did read an op-ed early on that impressed me with a similar argument early on, don't remember who it was. If I recall correctly, the writer was against U.S. intervention because of all the murk surrounding. The part that impressed me was that he said, though, that he didn't buy that Assad wasn't capable of doing it, because, he said, Assad hadn't said a word against what happened. No mutterings of sympathy for the victims, much less outrage, etc. Just that he didn't do it. So even if he didn't do it, he hasn't come out against anyone else using such weapons on civilians. At the same time, he made sure the U.N. inspectors were treated well. Just all very curious.
Should say I dunno what is in the Charlie Rose interview, so what I am suggesting here could have changed.
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:59am
by jollyroger on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 4:34am
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 3:32am
Kerry says 3 people control the chemical weapons and gives example of Assad lying about weapons. Note inference that Obama himself is the one making the decision to hold backfurther intel from public:
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 11:02am
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 12:36pm
Syria's answer: OK, sure, why not, thanks for asking, Russia, and fuck you, America:
That was fast.
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 12:50pm
Game, set, match. Lavrov: over to you, U.S. Congress.
Made me think of these lyrics:
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game?
by artappraiser on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 1:03pm
LOL
Great Rolling Stone reference.
if this pans out, hopefully we turn attention to the refugees.
by rmrd0000 on Mon, 09/09/2013 - 2:06pm