Former Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) cautioned against hasty military action in Syria during a Tuesday interview with The Hill, claiming that air strikes would help al Qaeda and lead to much broader conflict.
“So what, we’re about to become Al Qaeda’s air force now?” Kucinich said, presumably referring to reports that the terrorist group has also vowed “revenge” on Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. “This is a very, very serious matter that has broad implications internationally. And to try to minimize it by saying we’re just going to have a ‘targeted strike’ — that’s an act of war. It’s not anything to be trifled with.”
The Obama administration has confirmed its belief that Assad is responsible for killing as many as 1,000 innocent civilians in a chemical attack last week. The United Nations also concluded that a chemical substance was used in the strike, but has yet to determine that it came from Assad’s forces, who have accused rebel forces of also using chemical weapons.
While momentum for retaliatory military action builds in the West, Kucinich told The Hill that it would be unwise to rush into a decision that could possibly lead to “World War Three.”
Kucinich also suggested that it would be unconstitutional for Obama to order a strike without congressional approval, a viewpoint that both the president and Vice President Joe Biden once shared as members of Congress. The Ohio Democrat made a similar argument in 2011, claiming that it could be an impeachable offense for Obama to take military action in Libya without first consulting lawmakers.
Kucinich has attracted scrutiny for his input on Syria in the past. In 2011, he went on a “fact-finding” mission to the Middle Eastern nation, a trip that gave rise to reports by state-owned media claiming that Kucinich had lavished praise on Assad for his willingness to “negotiate.” Kucinich’s office responded by saying that the then-congressman’s actual comments had been “lost in translation.”
SYRIANS SCRAMBLE TO HIDE FROM OBAMA’S HUMANITARIAN LOVE BOMBS
“Every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?” by Paul Joseph Watson
Despite the US and Britain justifying an imminent attack on Syria in the name of “protecting civilians,” Syrians themselves are scrambling to hide from Obama’s humanitarian love bombs, with one Damascus resident telling Reuters, “We live in the capital. Every turn, every street, every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?”
Although a torrent of criticism has forced both Washington and London to move towards some kind of symbolic gesture involving the United Nations, a senior US official told NBC News today “we’re past the point of return” and that US air strikes against Syrian targets would inevitably occur “within days.”
That leaves thousands of Syrians living in major cities already ravaged by nearly two years of civil war and western-backed Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks looking up to the skies in anticipation of a fresh delivery of cruise missiles – all in the name of “protecting civilians” of course.
As Reuters reports, “dozens of military sites are mixed in among the civilian population,” meaning that western attacks will almost inevitably mean more loss of life, not to mention the wider threat of a new war in the Middle East.
Syrians have now begun hoarding supplies, including water, batteries, and food, with “the fear in people’s eyes” all too visible, while banks have been inundated with customers attempting to withdraw all their money.
People are fleeing in an effort to rent houses away from military sites, but many cannot afford skyrocketing prices in safer areas.
“What about my friend?” asked a woman whose family was lucky enough to be lent a house in a safe area. “Her whole family lives in this neighborhood. There is no place for them to go.”
With Syria about to become the 7th country to be on the receiving end of the Peace Prize winner’s humanitarian lovefest, let us not forget the fantastic success that this policy of taking a complex political problem and bombing it had in Libya.
Just as it did in Libya, the US is about to become “Al-Qaeda’s air force,” paving the way for extremist jihadists to seize power and turn Syria into their personal thug-rule thiefdom.
Two years after Obama’s love bombs rained down in Tripoli, Libya is now plagued by violence and chaos, has seen its economy collapse, is controlled by brutal tribes who imprison and torture their alleged political adversaries, and has become “the main base for Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.”
Now it’s Syria’s turn to experience what happens to countries who dare assert their sovereignty by attempting to fight back against an invasion of NATO and Gulf state-supplied terrorists.
Those Syrians who do manage to hide from Obama and Cameron’s humanitarian love bombs may escape death but the future of their country might not be much worth living for.
WAR MEDIA CONJURES WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AHEAD OF OBAMA’S SYRIA ATTACK by Hans Blix
Time Magazine is calling for Obama to use Clinton’s illegal 1998 Operation Desert Fox bombing campaign as a template when he bombs Syria, possibly tomorrow. Clinton’s foray into organized mass murder – designed in part to distract from his dalliance with Monica Lewinsky – lasted four days and killed hundreds of Iraqis. According to the United States, a barrage of cruise missiles were fired into Iraq to “degrade” Saddam Hussein’s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction, weapons sold to him by the United States.
Hans Blix: western media pushing war agenda ahead of Syria attack.
Time says the “trigger” for the coming bombing of Syria will be its weapons of mass destruction and “use of chemical weapons in suburbs of the Syrian capital that killed hundreds of civilians,” an “indiscriminate” attack the United States and its corporate propaganda machine say al-Assad maliciously conducted despite the fact there is absolutely no evidence he did anything of the sort.
Time insists the attack will be “rooted in weapons of mass destruction” and will target Syria’s military infrastructure. “It’ll probably be aimed at Syria’s command-and-control systems, the forces who might have been involved in using it, and maybe expanded to include higher headquarters that would have coordinated the operations,” Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, told Time.
The corporate war propaganda media invariably trots out neocons and other professional warmongers when it peddles excuses for mass murder under the threadbare banner of subjective and politically expedient humanitarianism. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, WINEP for short, is a “think tank” linked to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and its “scholars” are interchangeable with those over at the American Enterprise Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, neocon operations responsible for pushing the invasion of Iraq (death toll: approximately 1.5 million).
“It’s a lot easier to declare ‘mission accomplished’ when your objective is to blow up command posts, weapons depots and runways, instead of hunting down and destroying weapons of mass destruction, which can be elusive,” Time reports.
In fact, so elusive were Iraq’s WMDs, they were never found. George W. Bush, amply demonstrating the personality quirks of a psychopath, went so far as to contrive a stand-up comedy routine after it was conclusively demonstrated Iraq did not have WMDs. Bush and his cronies knew this.
Following Clinton’s bombing the war media told us the Pentagon went out of its way to spare innocent civilians. “While numerous Ba’ath security, intelligence, and military targets were destroyed, power and telephone systems were spared,” Michael Knights writes for the Washington Institute.
Clinton avoided bombing “dual-use infrastructure” because his predecessor had taken it out a few years before and punitive and medieval sanctions – ultimately claiming the lives of more than 500,000 Iraqi children – made sure Iraq never recovered.
“Bombing of Iraqi cities served no military purpose but was designed to destroy the civilian infrastructure,” David Model wrote in 2005. “War games in July 1990 in South Carolina trained pilots to bomb civilian targets and Pentagon statements about plans to bomb civilian targets in August and September 1990 are evidence that these targets were set well in advance of January 15, 1991.
Critical elements of the civilian infrastructure were destroyed including communication systems, oil refineries, electric generators, water treatment facilities, dams, and transportation centers. Over 90 percent of Iraq’s electrical capacity was destroyed in the first days of the bombing.
One of the most diabolical decisions in the campaign was to destroy Iraq’s water supply, resulting in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children long after the war was over. The capacity of Iraq to produce food was severely limited by the attacks on agriculture, food processing, food storage and the food distribution system. Half of Iraq’s agricultural output depended on irrigation systems which were also targeted.
Syria will be similarly targeted, but you won’t hear about it in the war propaganda media.
There will be claims from Syria of innocent civilians killed (Desert Fox killed up to 2,000 Iraqis) and complaints from Syrian allies Iran and Russia that the strikes violated international law, predicts Anthony Cordesman, a military scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “But, at the end of it,” he says, “they probably won’t use chemical weapons again.”
That may be the good news, relatively speaking. The bad news is that there’s no idea of what comes next for Syria, already torn apart by a 30-month civil war that has killed an estimated 100,000 people, after the all-but-certain U.S. attack.
Time does not put the 100,000 figure in context – if indeed accurate, and we have no way to verify the number for certain, it is largely the result of a civil war fomented by the United States and the CIA with their dual-use al-Qaeda mercenaries. It is an engineered civil war designed to take out the government of Bashar al-Assad and usher in a generation or more of failed state chaos in Syria.
“The conditions in Iraq ten years after the invasion do not look bright,” writes Fatih Abdulsalam. “There are more signs of division rather than unity, more signs of separation rather than coming together in regard to almost everything in the country.”
Following Obama’s attack, and subsequent attacks after the first one will undoubtedly prove insufficient, Syria’s future will also not look bright.
Once again, weapons of mass destruction serve as a pretext for a different agenda – the destruction of Syria and its removal as a geopolitical player in the region, an area increasingly dominated by the United States.