By David Swanson: Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie about the Lying!
"U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria," announces a Los Angeles Times headline, even though Syria has not attacked the United States or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces and has no intention to do so. Quoth the article: "the president made no decisions, but the high -level talks came as the Pentagon acknowledged it was moving U.S. forces into position in the region." Forgive me, but who the SNAFU made that decision? Does the commander in chief have any say in this? Does he get to make speeches explaining how wrong it would be to attack Syria, meet with top military officials who leave the meeting to prepare for attacks on Syria, and go down in history as having been uninvolved in, if not opposed to, his own policies? Threatening to attack Syria, and moving ships into position to do it, are significant, and illegal, and immoral actions. The president can claim not to have decided to push the button, but he can't pretend that all preparations to do so just happen like the weather. Or he couldn't if newspapers reported news. Yes, illegal. Read the U.N. Charter: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations." "The Defense Department has a responsibility to provide the president with options for all contingencies involve defending the United States? Do any of them involve peace-making? If not, is it really accurate to talk about "all" contingencies? In fact, Chuck Hagel only has that "responsibility" because Obama instructed him to provide, not all options, but all military options. Syrian rebels understand that under all possible U.S. policies, faking chemical weapons attacks can get them guns, while shifting to nonviolent resistance can only get them as ignored as Bahrain. (Ba-who?) "Obama also called British Prime Minister David Cameron," says the LA Times, "to talk over the developments in Syria. The two are 'united' in their opposition to the use of chemical weapons, the White House said in a statement issued after the call." Well, except for white phosphorus and napalm. Those are good chemical weapons, and the United States government is against 'bad' chemical weapons, so really your newspaper isn't lying to you at all. What did Obama say to CNN on Thursday? "The notion that the U.S. can somehow solve what is a sectarian, complex problem inside of Syria sometimes is overstated." Ya think? CNN's Chris Cuomo, son of Mario pushed for war: "But delay can be deadly, right, Mr. President?" Obama replied that he was still verifying the latest chemical weapons horseshit. Cuomo brushed that aside: "There's strong proof they used them already, though, in the past." Obama didn't reply to that lie, but spouted some vacuous rhetoric. Cuomo, his thirst for dead Syrian flesh perhaps getting a bit frustrated, reached for the standard John McCainism, Senator McCain, Cuomo said, thinks U. S. "credibility" is lost if Syria is not attacked. And if the U.S. government were to suddenly claim not to be an institution of mass-murder, and to act on that, then how would its credibility be? Obama, undeterred, went right on preaching against what he was about to do.