The Lies at the Heart of the Obama/Kerry Push for War—and Why They've Backfired

[Coyotl]

The Lies at the Heart of the Obama/Kerry Push for War—and Why They've Backfired
http://www.thenation.com/blog/176057/lies-heart-obamakerry-push-war-and-why-theyve-backfired

Greg Mitchell on September 6, 2013

President Obama held a press conference in St. Petersburg this morning—see my full account here—which turned into another dismal, at times half-hearted, performance in spinning the need for an attack on Syria. Richard Wolffe of MSNBC quickly labeled it “embarrassing.” The problem for the president remains: he and his secretary of state, John Kerry, have relied on half-truths and, let’s say it, lies, in promoting the war—and as one reporter pointed out at the presser, they actually lose the backing of the public and the Congress the more they say.

That’s because, with the belated help of some in the media, it is all too easy to see through the spin.

Let us count just some of the (un)truths and lies. We won’t even get into Kerry’s repeated claim that he opposed the invasion of Iraq in 2003 when the truth is completely the opposite (he came to oppose it later).

1) Yesterday I unpacked the claims of precisely 1,429 killed in the chemical attack, noting that all other sources put it much lower—in some cases at only one-fourth that number. ....

[dkf]

1. Yes it is painful to watch. I don't know what they were thinking

[snappyturtle]

2. Great article. The number of dead issue has bothered me.

Before the gov't came out with the 1429 figure I had heard
numbers ranging from 100-355. THEN all of a sudden only
the 1429 figure with no explanation of how it wa calculated.
I did read a whimper from Doctors Without Borders questioning
the official count...but only once.

It's matters like this that reinforce my skeptical nature
regarding anything reported by the gov't like it's set in
stone.

[CountAllVotes]

26. I heard 2,500 day before yesterday

[ProSense]

3. It's fascinating how

people simply assert that Kerry lied because they disagreed with what he said.

1) Yesterday I unpacked the claims of precisely 1,429 killed in the chemical attack, noting that all other sources put it much lower—in some cases at only one-fourth that number. I won’t repeat what I wrote but note that the White House still has given no source for this. At the presser today, Obama mentioned 1,400 “gassed”—not “killed.” I presume just a slip but wish a reporter had followed up.

How is that a lie? Kerry said "killed, Obama said "gassed"? This is silliness.

As for the claim the case he made "backfired," let's assess the situation:

Members Congress have condemned the attack by Assad. France and Germany have presented their own evidence that Assad did it.(http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778)

There is a joint statement by 11 of the G20 countries (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023610073)

Strangely, people who oppose a limited strike, are lining up behind a "sign this or all out war" proposal (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023611153)

Senators Heitkamp and Manchin float diplomatic alternative to military strikes on Syria
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/06/1236747/-Senators-Heitkamp-and-Manchin-float-diplomatic-alternative-to-Syrian-military-strikes

Still to come, Congress will vote and, later in the month, the UN will issue its report.

[Cha]

4. Thanks ProSense for some facts and common sense.

I call bullshit on those who are propagating PBO and Kerry "lied". Fuck their agenda if they have to lie to push it.

[treestar]

22. People talking about the number

seem to be saying it's OK to gas 325 people to death but not OK to gas 1429 people to death. Therefore if they can debunk the 1429 number, they can support letting Assad get away with it.

The issue is the use of gas and that it can kill far more people with less effort on the killer's part.

[nashville_brook]

5. it's so sad to see them stooping to this level of dishonesty -- why lie? why not tell the truth?

...i guess it's harder to pitch... going to war on behalf of al Qaeda.

strange days indeed.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE98405L20130905?irpc=932


Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State John Kerry's public assertions that moderate Syrian opposition groups are growing in influence appear to be at odds with estimates by U.S. and European intelligence sources and nongovernmental experts, who say Islamic extremists remain by far the fiercest and best-organized rebel elements.

At congressional hearings this week, while making the case for President Barack Obama's plan for limited military action in Syria, Kerry asserted that the armed opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad "has increasingly become more defined by its moderation, more defined by the breadth of its membership, and more defined by its adherence to some, you know, democratic process and to an all-inclusive, minority-protecting constitution.

"And the opposition is getting stronger by the day," Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday.

U.S. and allied intelligence sources and private experts on the Syrian conflict suggest that assessment is optimistic.

While the radical Islamists among the rebels may not be numerically superior to more moderate fighters, they say, Islamist groups like the al Qaeda-aligned Nusra Front are better organized, armed and trained.

As recently as late July, at a security conference in Aspen, Colorado, the deputy director of the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency, David Shedd, estimated that there were at least 1,200 different Syrian rebel groups and that Islamic extremists, notably the Nusra Front, were well-placed to expand their influence.

"Left unchecked, I'm very concerned that the most radical elements will take over larger segments" of the opposition groups, Shedd said. He added that the conflict could drag on anywhere "from many, many months to multiple years" and that a prolonged stalemate could leave open parts of Syria to potential control by radical fighters.

[Coyotl]

12. They do seem to be lying or deluding themselves about who the opposition really is.

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 12:13 PM - Edit history (1)

The radical Islamists seem to be dominating the opposition, at least in the sense of who controls the most territory and has the most effective forces.

[nashville_brook]

27. it's the same old song and dance we've been doing in the middle east since the 50s

there's no "good side," there's no fealty or patriotism except to profit.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Its too bad they're such liars.

Had they not already been caught lying about NSA and such, I would have given them the benefit of the doubt. But, given the lies they've already told, I checked their Syria statements against the facts. Its just a constant stream of fibs. So disappointing.

[Coyotl]

9. Agreed.

[upi402]

30. agree n/t

[Th1onein]

7. He's beginning to look more and more like Colin Powell.

God, this is such a disappointment. Propaganda and lies.

[Coyotl]

10. Colin Powell Redux.

[Waiting For Everyman]

8. To call any of those "lies" is hyperbole.

So who is worse? That article was a crock. I used to think The Nation was better than that.

[Coyotl]

14. Would you call them simply "untruths" then?

[Enrique]

11. they are worse at lying than the Bush people

that is to their credit.

[Coyotl]

13. Degrees of lying? Really?

On edit. Maybe politicians need degrees in Lying. Some seem to have Ph.D.'s some only B.S.'s

[Coyotl]

15. Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Draws Scrutiny Over Writer's Ties To Syrian Rebel Advocacy Group

Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Draws Scrutiny Over Writer's Ties To Syrian Rebel Advocacy Group
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/wall-street-journal-syria-elizabeth-obagy_n_3881477.html

A Wall Street Journal op-ed cited this week by both Secretary of State John Kerry and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has drawn scrutiny for not disclosing writer Elizabeth O'Bagy's ties to a Syrian rebel advocacy group.

On Thursday, The Daily Caller examined O'Bagy's role as political director for the Syria Emergency Task Force, a group that has lobbied the White House and Congress to support the rebels. O'Bagy told The Daily Caller that she is not a salaried employee, but serves as a paid contractor.

Journalist Laura Rozen questioned Friday why the Journal op-ed -- which was published a week ago online and in Saturday's print edition -- did not identify O'Bagy's affiliation with the group.

The Huffington Post contacted the Journal on Friday and was told the paper would not comment on op-ed's lack of disclosure. But shortly thereafter, a clarification was added to the piece: "In addition to her role at the Institute for the Study of War, Ms. O'Bagy is affiliated with the Syrian Emergency Task Force, a nonprofit operating as a 501(c)(3) pending IRS approval that subcontracts with the U.S. and British governments to provide aid to the Syrian opposition."

.......

[HooptieWagon]

18. I believe she has been named "Curvebelle".

Its astonishing to me the administration would trot out such an obvious fraud as a frontperson.

[Coyotl]

19. Deja Blue!

What is the difference between Red and Blue? Good question on this issue!

[Coyotl]

16. Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

Obama Warned on Syrian Intel

September 7th, 2013 9:46 AM
By Ray McGovern

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

The Intelligence

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono?

That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role

Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation

We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

[HooptieWagon]

24. Pretty impressive report.

And its not some bs propaganda from "Curvebelle", it is signed by a whole litany of retired intelligence and middle east experts.

Obama better stop lying, and make his case truthfully. If he wants us to believe his intelligence reports, make them public, the good AND the bad.

[ProSense]

29. So

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandum immediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

...they're trying to prove the rebels did it, but are claiming the intelligence the U.S. is presenting against Assad is unreliable?

The nonsense about being "down this road before – with President George W. Bush" is beyond absurd.

This is basically another Assad didn't do it argument. The intelligence isn't fake. The attack isn't a figment of anyone's imagination. Even they acknowledge the attack, but are making a convoluted case that the rebels did it. The scale and location of the attacks make the case against the rebels more implausible, but those trying to absolve Assad seem to want to portray their claims as irrefutable.

There is also evidence from other countries implicating Assad.

The UN is having samples from Syria tested. France and Germany presented evidence Assad did it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023590778

Sarin traces found in Syria chemical weapons attack, Britain says

By Michael Pearson. Greg Botelho and Holly Yan, CNN

(CNN) -- British military scientists found traces of sarin gas in soil and clothing taken from a patient treated near the site of an alleged chemical weapons attack outside Syria's capital, the prime minister's office said Thursday.

Scientists at the Porton Down military laboratory concluded the samples were unlikely to have been faked, and Britain is sharing its findings with the United Nations, the office said.

The revelation is the most specific statement by British officials regarding the chemical they believe was used in the August 21 attack on a rebel stronghold near Damascus, though the office didn't explicitly say who was responsible. U.S. officials have, blaming Syrian government forces for an attack they say left more than 1,400 people dead, many of them children.

The British statement is not the first allegation that sarin gas -- an extremely volatile nerve agent that can kill -- has been used in Syria's gruesome, two-year civil war.

- more -

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/05/world/meast/syria-civil-war/

[Little Star]

31. Ouch...

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

I think they are just warning the president to not rely solely on the pro war hawks & they ask he listen to some doves.

Way back in the time frame of the red line statement, I had read reports that it was the rebels. Who knows.

[woo me with science]

17. K&R Same old lies, repackaged for a new war.

What a fucking scam.

[Catherina]

23. I can't believe how inept and tone deaf they are

While I had no illusions about their loyalties, I did expect a little more finesse. This is just crude.

[HooptieWagon]

25. Beyond crude, its totally inept.

They cant do better than re-packaging all the Iraq lies? They think we're stupid.

[treestar]

20. Just because Bush lied doesn't mean they all lie

This is CT nonsense.

[Coyotl]

21. Of course, the OP isn't about "they all"

[Aerows]

28. "CT nonsense"?

Um, the woman who is the spokesperson for the "moderate" rebels, you know, the ones that we have pictures of them beheading people and executing people after they have been tortured, is being paid by the rebels.

Are you *really* going to sit there and say that isn't a bald-faced lie?