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

[MNBrewer]

Greg Mitchell - The Nation

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176057/lies-heart-obamakerry-push-war-and-why-theyve-backfired#

"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. 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."

More at link, above.

[Jeneral2885]

1. If he gives back his Nobel Peace Prize

he could gain some support

[CrispyQ]

2. I wouldn't give him my support, but he would gain back a little bit of my respect.

As for Kerry? I don't even know what to say at the things this man said this past week. Maybe, "Can I have my 2004 contributions back, please, Mr. Secretary?"

[blm]

3. Mitchell is wrong - Kerry opposed the decision to invade when inspectors

were reporting back that the WMDs were not found and use of force was not needed. He was the ONLY yes vote on IWR to do so, and that position never changed, no matter how many edited soundbites the GOP put out.

After all this time so many people still get that wrong. Perhaps because they WANT to.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Opposition to invading Iraq meant voting NO on IWR. Kerry voted yes, Hagel voted yes

and Kerry said much about the threat of Saddam's WMDs and the works. 23 US Senators voted NO on IWR and they were opposed to the war. Kerry and Hagel voted Yes, and Kerry running around claiming he and Chuck were opposed is a full tilt lie. It is a lie. Offensive and disgusting lie.
"When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable." —Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002

[blm]

7. You left out the part where he said if weapon inspectors do not find what

the WH claimed, that he'd stand against any decision to invade.

And that is exactly what he did.

No one else did.

Had more yes voters stood with him it would have been easier to be heard then and you'd all be more familiar with the facts.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. He authorized the invasion. He claims he did not, he claims Hagel did not. But they did.

He was a Senator, 100 Americans get a vote in that chamber, out 300 million plus. Kerry used his vote to empower Bush to invade Iraq.
In 2004 Kerry stated that he would not have changed his vote to invade Iraq. He said he'd have done the war better than Bush. But he stood by his vote to authorize invasion.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

[blm]

92. He voted for IWR and promised to oppose a decision to invade if it wasn't

based on the findings of the weapon inspections.

When the reports showed no WMDs Kerry opposed the decision to invade. What part of opposed the decision to invade is mystifying to you?

[Bluenorthwest]

17. I'm waiting for you to address what Kerry said this week about Hagel opposing the war they

both voted for. Your defense of Kerry leaves Hagel in the cold and Kerry made equal claims that Hagel also opposed the very war he voted to wage.
I understand that Kerry is saying both of them were fooled by fake 'intel' but he is unclear about that because to say so clearly is not exactly a positive thing when trying to convince the world you are correct this time, about this intel, when you were so murderously wrong last time.
'Chuck and I were both duped into the last war!!! That's why we should be trusted!!!'

[ctsnowman]

30. Anyone who watches this

And still pretends he wasn't part of the reason we went refuses to use reason. You may notice some of the exact same terms he has used over the last few weeks.

Peace.

[blm]

93. And when inspectors reported no WMDs found he opposed the DECISION to invade

just as he promised he would during that speech - the part you ignore.

And anyone who has difficulty understanding that simple fact is dug into their preferred narrative.

[Little Star]

103. Then he should have not voted yes until the inspectors reported back.....

Just another "he was for it before he was against it".

When you vote, your vote is all that matters and there is no way to slime out of that. But he gets an A for trying.

[ctsnowman]

108. You are wasting your time.

The apologist is strong in that one.

Peace.

[blm]

111. Your O'Keefe style of editing to suit your narrative

is apparent.

[ctsnowman]

107. Yes that's what I'd expect you to say.

I'd say he made an impassioned speech to drag us into war. Everything after is too little too late.

[blm]

110. You IGNORED key parts of the speech deliberately.

O'Keefe style.

[ctsnowman]

112. No, but I do now ignore you.

[Carolina]

20. Hey, Bluenorthwest

No sense in trying to 'talk' to some people on this board about Kerry... BLIND loyalty clouds all reason, judgment and common sense.

I totally agree with you. Kerry is a shameless tool. I was done with him when he voted for IWR. It was a ploy by shrub just before the 2002 midterms and only repukes, fools and those with their political fingers in the wind (Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd..) voted aye. Kerry's vote was particularly egregious because:

1) he was in a safe seat
2) his constituents were opposed
3) he'd investigated Iran-Contra and knew the Bushes (father and son) were liars
4) he knew, or should have known, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 because:
a) 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as was bin Laden; and the other 4 were from
Egypt, Yemen & the United Arab Emirates (Dubai, Halliburton)
b) Iraq had been under awful sanctions since the US invasion in 1991 (where we used depleted
uranium, by the way), had been periodically bombed during the Clinton administration and
thus could not have morphed into an imminent threat
5) he knew, or should have known since he supposedly had foreign policy expertise, that Iraq's
chemical weapons came from the US during the Reagan years (the famous Rumsfeld handshake)
and were used in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war with the blessing of the USA!

Kerry's a hypocrite, a liar, an MIC tool who lost any moral compass ages ago as he rose in the political food chain and married the uber-rich republican, Mrs. Heinz!

But, of course, blm etc. refuse to "see" this side of JK.

[deutsey]

28. "knew the Bushes (father and son) were liars"

That's what irritates me...

It's as if after every Bush lie someone takes out one of those memory erasers from "Men in Black".

"Oh my God! Iraqi troops are throwing babies from incubators onto the floor!...Hey, wait, that's a big, fat lie..."


*POOF!*

"Hmmm. What was I saying? Oh well...must not have been important."

[AnotherMcIntosh]

35. Well said. n/t

[stevenleser]

29. No. The IWR vote was understandable. What was not understandable was going to war after the UN

weapons inspectors spent 4 months on the ground, examined all sites and found no weapons.

I have no idea why people like you persist in pushing that meme. It doesnt make sense at all unless your goal is to attack Democrats.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Iraq-War--Six-Year-Annive-by-Steven-Leser-090304-145.html

[Carolina]

89. No, it was not understandable

There was no reason to target Iraq (the I in IWR).

It was a design of PNAC long before 9/11, and IWR was ploy by shrub just before the 2002 midterms. Only repukes, fools and those with their political fingers in the wind: Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd.. voted aye. And their votes were particularly egregious because:

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and they knew it... 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as was bin Laden and the other 4 were from Egypt, Yemen & the United Arab Emirates (Dubai, Halliburton). Iraq had been under awful sanctions since the US invasion in 1991 (where we used depleted uranium), had been periodically bombed during the Clinton administration and thus could certainly not have morphed into an imminent threat to the US!

2) Iraq's chemical weapons (part of pretext for IWR) came from the US during the Reagan years (the famous Rumsfeld handshake)
and were used in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war with the blessing of the USA!

Sometimes Democrats deserved to be called out (attacked as you say), especially when they are so wrong. Kerry's a hypocrite, a liar and an MIC tool. Obomber is showing exactly (sadly) where his true passion lies. Funny, he never fought with such fire in the belly for a public option!

[stevenleser]

94. Almost everything you wrote is wrong and demonstrably so.

Groups like PNAC can form and say whatever they want.

1. Most Democrats like Clinton also suspected that Iraq had WMD. We can post tons of statements to that effect. Its fact.

2. Most countries also suspected Iraq had WMD. Hence UN Security Council Resolution 1441 passed 4 weeks after IWR/AUMF

3. Most countries, like Syria who voted to pass 1441 were also duped by the Bush administration who also told them there would be no military action without an additional vote.

4. It was up to the President to act or not to act after the UN Weapons Inspector reports of March 7 said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. If he had not gone to war, as indeed was his responsibility NOT to do after those reports, the IWR/AUMF vote and UN Sec Res 1441 would obviously have been seen as the right policy. They WERE the right policy.

Congress cannot restrain in the short term a President who is determined to break the law. AUMF was broken by the Bush administration. If a President is going to break laws and resolutions passed by congress how is it that you blame members of congress? That does not make sense at all. Impeachment takes months. There was nothing to impeach FOR until we actually went to war. By then it was too late.

[Carolina]

97. Oh puhleeze.

Of course Iraq had had weapons. Past tense

There's the famous photo of Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983... because during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the US exported chemical weapons and other materials to Iraq that produced Sarin nerve gas and burning mustard gas. When these were used in 1988 on the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds, the US looked the other way because the Iranians were our enemies after they ousted our installed puppet, the Shah, and then took over our embassy. And we didn't give a damn about Kurds!

In the documentary "Beyond Treason" by Joyce Riley, early troops into Iraq found chemical weapons made in the US. The old joke then was, we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because we have the receipts. Irony in all this is that the US aided Saddam in obtaining weapons, then forced him to destroy his chemical weapons after the 1st Gulf War and yet in 2003 he was still allegedly "guilty"' of having them though the weapons inspectors had found no such evidence!

Don't tell me I'm wrong. Go read history.

All who bought Bush's lies were fools; and we know how the UN was cowed by the US/Bush Cabal and Colin's performance. So, the UN resolution means little. And, btw, PNAC is/was not just any group saying whatever it wanted. It is tied to the powerful Carlyle Group, it had seized power through theft 2000 and it was hell-bent on implementing its plan to carve up Iraq for its oil.

Iraq was an innocent nation that the US has used and abused, invaded twice, left in anarchy and littered with depleted uranium.

Now, get thee library! Bye, bye

[George II]

38. I really wish that SOME DAY someone around here would actually READ the IWR!!!...

And it's not "IWR", it's "AUMF".

[stevenleser]

66. Yep. That's really important. See the link in my #29 above.

[George II]

71. Good post, I totally agree (#29 above)

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

The concept behind the AUMF is rational and sensible, and if anyone truly read the wording, the Congress could have justifiably voted 435-0 and the Senate could have voted 100-0 in favor of it.

Unfortunately, the bush administration MISUSED the AUMF and the vote to justify a FALSE war. In fact, Iraq complied with enough of the provisions of the AUMF to have avoided the war - most notably the destruction of "WMD". That was the most compelling provision. As it turned out, there either never were any WMD or they were destroyed as dictated by the UN and the AUMF. Therefore, the Iraq war was totally unnecessary and the bush administration prostituted the AUMF to justify their bogus war.

[Carolina]

91. Like there is really that big a difference

AUMF or IWR... it was all a big lie, it was all about giving Bush, of all people, carte blanche authorization to use force against Iraq!

And there was no reason to target Iraq. It was a PNAC design long before 9/11, and the AUMF or IWR was ploy by shrub just before the 2002 midterms. Only repukes, fools and those with their political fingers in the wind: Kerry, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd.. voted aye. And all of their votes were particularly egregious because:

1) Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and they knew it... 15 of the 19 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia as was bin Laden, and the other 4 were from Egypt, Yemen & the United Arab Emirates (Dubai, Halliburton).

2) Iraq had been under awful sanctions since the US invasion in 1991 (where we used depleted uranium) and had been periodically bombed during the Clinton administration.

3) Iraq's chemical weapons (part of pretext for IWR) came from the US during the Reagan-Bush I years (the famous Rumsfeld handshake) and were used in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war with the blessing of the USA!

So how could any one with a functioning neuron and some degree of critical thought buy the swill that suddenly Iraq was an imminent threat to the US and POTUS needed such an authorization?!

Keep spinning 'til you get dizzy, but there was no justification for that authorization, and all it did was give shrub bipartisan cover. Those Dems who voted aye have blood on their hands and are now lusting for more blood.

And, btw, a nation that stands by while its own citizens -- many of them children -- die by guns, hunger (no $ food stamps), lack of health care, lack of education(no $ for Headstart), etc... is NOT considering an intervention in Syria for HUMANITARIAN reasons!

[stevenleser]

95. As I wrote above, almost everything you say is wrong. nt

[Carolina]

98. And as I responded

Go study some history. Facts are your friend!

All who bought Bush's lies were fools; and we know how the UN was cowed by the US/Bush Cabal and Colin's performance. So, Bush's AUMF and the UN resolution mean little. Iraq was an innocent nation that the US has used and abused, invaded twice, left in anarchy and littered with depleted uranium.

There's the famous photo of Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983... because during the Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988), the US exported chemical weapons and other materials to Iraq that produced Sarin nerve gas and burning mustard gas. When these were used in 1988 on the Iranians and Iraqi Kurds, the US looked the other way because the Iranians were our enemies after they ousted our installed puppet, the Shah, and then took over our embassy. And we didn't give a damn about Kurds!

In the documentary "Beyond Treason" by Joyce Riley, early troops into Iraq found chemical weapons made in the US. The old joke then was, we know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because we have the receipts. Irony in all this is that the US aided Saddam in obtaining weapons, then forced him to destroy his chemical weapons after the 1st Gulf War and yet in 2003 he was still allegedly "guilty"' of having them though the weapons inspectors had found no such evidence!

Don't tell me I'm wrong; get thee library! Bye, bye

[George II]

99. The bush administration's explanation that "justified" the use of force was created by them...

....the AUMF did not authorize the bush administration to use military force based on the facts. But they created their own "facts" to invade Iraq. Didn't you read the Downing Street memo?

[Carolina]

100. No shit! And didn't

you mean to post this reply to stevenleser. You and I agree, read my posts up thread

Your snarky: didn't you read the Downing Street memo should be addressed to him.

The Bush cabal had a plan, used prostituted intelligence, and parsed facts as well. That's my argument with stevenleser

[George II]

101. I think he/she agrees with you. I certainly agree with that premise...

...the AUMF did NOT authorize the bush administration to go to war based on reality at the time. I think stevenleser thinks so too.

Unfortunately the majority of Americans, along with congressmen that voted for it, probably never read it or, if they did, didn't understand what it said.

[Carolina]

102. "I think

she/he agree with you" ????

If you read the exchange between stevenleser and me, it is clear we are at complete odds!

Bye, bye

[karynnj]

26. He also ignores that the number dead is not as disputed as he writes

For instance, the French spoke of the number who died that was obtained from local hospitals - true it's a number in the 300s -- and then estimates the total dead as 1500 - close to the US number. I suspect the discrepancy is that many did not go to hospitals - they died too quickly.

[ellenrr]

4. In this article, holes are also pointed out:

"To some, US case for Syrian gas attack, strike has too many holes"


Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/02/201027/to-some-us-case-for-syrian-gas.html#.UismwdJzGSo#storylink=cpy

[WovenGems]

5. Time to think

Since the bombing surfaced enough time has passed for many to think of the ramifications. And none of them seem to be good. If Assad did use gas then however the war ends he gets to go the Hague for trial. If I were smoking a joint on the porch I would expect cops and not a cruise missile.

[wisteria]

8. Nonsence, lies according to who?

Some unnamed sources, and being reported in "The Nation"? I think it is others who are lying, creating misinformation and ignorance in an attempt promote their narrow point of view.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. What do you have against the Nation?

I also find it to be creepy when a person claims that 'others' are lying, others they refuse to name, without naming the lies or the liars. Creepy ass behavior.

[totodeinhere]

14. So now at DU we are going to trash one of the premier progressive magazines the Nation?

What is this forum coming to?

[woo me with science]

18. PROPAGANDA.

It's thick, and steamy.

[backscatter712]

45. Exactly. The signs are there.

This is an example of the well aged persona, with thousands or tens of thousands of posts, so they can claim to be a "DU Old Timer". Yet I don't see that username much in the active discussions on GD, until particular topics come up and these types thread-pounce and swarm completely out of nowhere.

[MNBrewer]

33. You know "The Nation"... that NeoCon rag....

Plus, they never REALLY loved PBO

[ctsnowman]

43. lol

[backscatter712]

47. I heard The Nation has piles of boxes in their offices! n/t

[Dragonfli]

106. I hate NeoCons! That's why I only read proper credible sources...

....that REALLY loved PBO

[center]

http://theobamadiary.com/[/center]

[Aerows]

15. For one

the woman that was pushing that the rebels were moderates is ... paid by the rebels. Kerry and Obama have been pushing that claim made by her. Meanwhile, you see pictures of them carrying out beheadings and executions, which doesn't sound very moderate.

[nashville_brook]

49. like the "narrow point of view" that climate science is correct.

it's the "narrow point of view" that 92% hold, that another war in the middle east is about as enticing as herpes.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

11. All they need to do

is make Assad an offer that he can't refuse and get his supporters to surrender. We have some of the best agents in the world.

[JayhawkSD]

23. Sure, surrender and die, or fight on

This is largely an ethnic war now. If Assad surrenders he will be executed. Only an idiot would accept that option.

One Shiite village overrun by the village was a victim of genocide. Every single Shiite in the village was executed. The Shiite population does not want Assad to surrender.

Churches are being burned and Christians are being killed merely because they are Vhristian. The Christian population does not want Assad to surrender.

Any more bright ideas?

[dotymed]

12. Bombing Syria

(even the argument) sure has taken the NSA SPYING ON AMERICANS story off the front page.

[jsr]

13. They're carrying on the traditions of the previous administration

Embarrassing revelations can always be replaced by diversions and new shiny objects, and questionable policy announcements are hidden in Friday news dumps.

[totodeinhere]

16. Of course the two stories are related. It's the MIC behind both. n/t

[Aerows]

19. +1000 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

21. Kerry's claim that he and Hagel both opposed the war they both voted for was disgusting

A liar is a liar is a liar.

[karynnj]

27. It is the truth

That vote - which Bush said was not a vote for war before it happened - was in October 2002 and the war started in March 2003. Kerry PUBLICLY called for Bush not to rush to war on January 23 at Georgetown University. He said at that point that it would not be a war of last resort. Know where that phrase comes from? St Augustine - and it means it would not be a just war.

As to Hagel, I think he is speaking of comments that Lugar and Hagel made in SFRC hearings.

[MNBrewer]

32. Well, we all know that it was actually a vote for war

And Kerry tried to have it both ways, as did many Democrats. They gave Bush a blank check and he took us all to the bank for more than he was worth.

[Iggo]

70. Oh well gosh, if Bush said it you better believe it.

[cali]

113. it is a vile unforgivable lie. fuck John Kerry.

Senator Kennedy knew it was a vote for war. He said so. Senator Leahy knew it was a fucking blank check for bushie. He said so. So did 20 other Senators.

John Kerry is a liar. He lies over and over again.

Fuck him and his disgusting lies.

[blm]

114. Kerry opposed the DECISION to invade after Weapon inspections report.

He stood with the weapon inspectors saying there was no need for military force based on their inability to find the WMDs they were told were there.

Why is it so important to you to untruthfully claim that Kerry did NOT oppose the DECISION to invade Iraq after the report from weapon inspectors?

[4dsc]

22. One death by chemical weapons is too many

I for one say "let the bombing begin".

[JayhawkSD]

24. But 100,000 deaths by conventional means is okay.

No need to intervene for that.

[heaven05]

25. something stinks

Last edited Sat Sep 7, 2013, 12:52 PM - Edit history (2)

in this latest run up to war. Let me be clear, I don't want us in Syria in any capacity. If these "lies" were coming out of the mouths of PNAC neocons, would our vaunted media be so against this proposed attack? I seem to remember all MSM of note , NYT< MSNBC< FAUX< CNN and even NPR by god jumping on BUSHCO's bandwagon to KILL Saddam. Now because we're so tired of war, this POTUS and SOS, according to MSM and national level legislators are war mongering. The Iraq lies were just as debunked beforehand yet conservatives got free reign to totally destroy a country and kill between 100,000 and one million Iraqis depending on whose numbers one follows... I'm just trying to put it all in perspective. Truly, I am disappointed in my "hope and change" POTUS, yet the obviousness of the schizophrenic nature of this whole last decade has me confused, I guess.

[ctsnowman]

31. See video below

Anyone who watches this has to admit he carried water for Bush's war. Even Rachel Maddow used him in her expose of the war. This is from CSPAN not faux news.

[Catherina]

40. He was *fooled* lol n/t

[ctsnowman]

109. Somehow

This speech has been repackaged as a call for inspectors now. Doesn't sound like a simple call for inspections to me. It's laced with all the Hitler BS and threat to our national security BS to boot.

[gopiscrap]

34. Interesting I am against going in and am grateful

that there is push back but I have to wonder when a Republican is in office there was no questioning how ever now when there is a Democrat in, the corporate media is starting to take their role seriously?

[MNBrewer]

37. The corporate media have almost nothing to do with the push back against this war

They would be perfectly happy to go along for the ride (probably already have the flashy graphics and ominous music cued up). This is wide-spread, bi-partisan opposition. PBO seriously misjudged this and will (rightfully) pay a political price.

[gopiscrap]

39. yeah but last time in the Iraq War lead up there was opposition

and the media either ignored us or ridiculed us...this time that is not happening

[MNBrewer]

41. Exactly!

So did the sheep who supported the war. (e.g., Andrew Sullivan). They ridiculed us mercilessly. And hundreds of thousands died for nothing, and continue to die in Iraq.

I hope all Americans will cast a skeptical eye on any administration that proposes to drag us into military conflict, including that of PBO.

[gopiscrap]

48. Thank you I totally agree

I was so fucking pissed off couldn't think straight. But I think part of that is clouded because of my own personal experience. My dad was in Vietnam in 1961 at the very tail end of Eisenhower's days as president and got shot and seriously injured. The admin (and Kennedy's) were denying that we had troops on the ground. Then came the Gulf of Tonkin incident during the Johnson admin and the first thing out of my mom's mouth was "they're lying" after spending the week before Christmas as a 7 year old burying my dad for a war that we theoretically weren't in, I take a very cynical mindset to any military aggression proposed by any president.

[George II]

36. "All other sources"?

"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."

It is said that the White House still has given no source for this, the 1400+ deaths, but what source states that it's one fourth of that? I see that isn't provided either!

[MNBrewer]

42. Do you expect other people to do your thinking for you, too?

The way you seem to expect other people to click links for you?

It took me 2 clicks to find the information.

[George II]

46. After about five or six clicks (didn't specifically count them) the only..........

....."source" I was able to find was "a French Intelligence Report", nothing specific.

If you're going to be calling people liars the least you can do is present the FACTS that disprove what they say, not the typical neocon response "go find it yourself". By pulling that ploy, you lose lots of credibility.

And I do my own thinking, thank you - how about you?

[MNBrewer]

50. It's interesting to me, that you pick up on one minor point in the article

and somehow spin it so that the author is the liar, not the President and SOS.

What "source" did PBO's administration use when he gave the 1,429 number?

[George II]

61. I didn't call the author a liar at all. I just pointed out that the author........

......who claims that the White House didn't give the source of their 1400+ deaths, was unable to give the source of HIS presumably more accurate number.

It's a fair observation, don't you think?

[MNBrewer]

63. The burden of proof being on those who urge war...

I'd say the White House owes us a full accounting of the 1,429.

[George II]

78. So you're backing down on the 1429 number being a "lie"? Otherwise...

...if it's still considered a "lie" then the TRUTH should be presented to prove that "lie".

[MNBrewer]

79. I posted an article that said it was a lie.

I didn't write the article. The 1,429 may well be a lie, but we'll never find out because the Administration doesn't think we have a right to know.

I sure as hell don't believe ANY number at face value that comes out of the intelligence apparatus that gave us the Iraq war "intelligence". If this opaque Administration wants to convince us, THEY must prove their case. I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.

[George II]

85. Your subject line is "the lies......" etc.

And one of the sources cited claims that the true number is one-quarter of the Administration's number, and another says it's 500. So is one of the sources "lying"? People are just too eager to characterize something that may not be, but not intentionally, incorrect a "lie".

So, based on the source that is linked, assuming it is correct (but obviously not because 500 is not 1/4 of 1429, but whatever..) I guess 500 deaths are OK because it's more accurate than possibly 1429?

[MNBrewer]

88. That's a direct quote of the headline of the article

And now you're changing the subject.

I don't think it matters how many died, personally. Zero or 40,000. It's still far less than have died via conventional weapons in this civil war, AND it's not the number of casualties that determines the crime here, it's the use of the gas.

None of the deaths in this war are "ok". None of the deaths that the US will cause when it fires missiles at Syrian targets will be "ok" either.

Like it or not, there is a legal mechanism for dealing with the use of chemical weapons. Not following that mechanism, striking on our own is NOT legal and is an act of war.

[HooptieWagon]

81. 1429 is a very specific number.

So the WH shouldn't have a problem with making their documentation public. Unless, of course, the documentation doesn't support their figure at all...in which case, they're lying again.

[George II]

86. But we don't KNOW that they're lying..I'm sure the details of their number will come out soon enough

[Ocelot]

44. K&R, and this seems to be just the tip of the WH's Iceberg of Lies...

Despite some misinformation the Warmongers are trying to spread, the findings of Doctors Without Borders (aka Medecins Sans Frontieres) do NOT support Obama's made-up numbers and twisted claims. In fact, their own observations have called into question whether chemical nerve agents were even used in Syria at all:

Experts noticed yet another anomaly: The number of those treated who survived far outnumbered the dead, contrary to what would be expected in a nerve gas attack. Dr. Ghazwan Bwidany told CBS news August 24 that his mobile medical unit had treated 900 people after the attack and that 70 had died. Medecins Sans Frontieres reported that 3,600 patients had been treated at hospitals in the area of the attack and that 355 had died. Such ratios of survivors to dead were the opposite of what chemical weapons specialists would have expected from a nerve gas attack. Kaszeta told Truthout that the "most nagging doubt" he had about the assumption that a nerve gas attack had taken place is the roughly 10-to-1 ratio of total number treated to the dead. "The proportions are all wrong," he said. "There should be more dead people." Johnson agreed. In an actual nerve gas attack, he said, "You'd get some survivors, but it would be very low. This [is] a very low level of lethality."

[link:http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria|
http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria]

This same article (HIGHLY recommended, and discussed in depth on the CounterSpin radio program yesterday) calls many more aspects of Obama/Kerry's claims into question... including the high likelihood that much of the "official" story on the Syrian attacks is nothing more than Israeli propaganda/B.S. regurgitated by the White House without any critical examination of the facts.

[VanillaRhapsody]

51. so what is the threshold allowed for chemical weapons?

How many chemical weapons deaths does the treaty we signed with 98% of the world that chemical weapons would not be used against civilians? I want to know how many resistance members that despots and tyrants are allowed to chemically exterminate before the U.S. steps in? I just want to be clear...so apparently if it is less then 1400 its just an anomaly right? So is it okay if they just gas 1000 at a clip? Do we look the other way on that one?

[polly7]

52. Did you find the proof that Assad ordered any gas attacks?

It seems to be sketchier as the days go by. Please do share your info.

[VanillaRhapsody]

54. So only if Assad ordered it himself?

if he has been conducting low level chemical use all along...but someone screwwed up the "recipe" this time....that's okay by you because Assad didn't really mean to do it?

Yes Occam's Razor tells me that the man WITH known chemical weapons and the means to deliver them did it. Why are you suggesting that the resistance forces killed their own people?

[polly7]

56. IF .......... you know, I understand you and I really have no

stake in the game at this point, but I'd hope the people of Syria would deserve more than sketchy info with absolutely no proof before the bombs start falling.

[VanillaRhapsody]

58. bombs are not going to falling on Syrian people...they are going to fall on Assad's chemical weapons

and means of delivery. Will some die...sadly some probably will. But how many children will be saved by eliminating the chemical weapons and means to deliver any not found...

[MNBrewer]

60. THis again?

[VanillaRhapsody]

64. Yep I have seen no indication that he has any other intention to do any thing else...

do you have proof he is going to carpet bomb civilians?

[MNBrewer]

65. Your silly emotional plea to "please think of the children" is easily seen through.

I don't much care whether the people killed were women and/or children. Talking about "women and children" is an emotional rhetorical ploy.

They were all human beings, including the men, and many many times that have been killed in this war by conventional weapons and their deaths are no less a crime against humanity. That still doesn't give us the right or responsibility to go in and intervene in THEIR civil war.

Punishment for the use of chemical weapons has a procedure and that procedure is NOT that the US gets to bomb whomever we please. To do that would be illegal under the UN treaties that we have signed and the chemical weapons convention.

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. there were a LARGE percentage of babies killed in their beds by Assad

sorry that fact bothers you that I mention it...

The punishment is .....you lose those weapons. We have zero-tolerance policy towards chemical weapons...

If you disagree...the please tell us how many a dictator can gas before we should eliminate them? What is your threshold?

[MNBrewer]

73. And Saddam Hussein's troops were dumping babies out of incubators in Kuwait...

Fool me once, shame on me.

The punishment isn't up to US!! Get your facts straight! The very basis you claim as justification for our attacks clearly do NOT allow that to be done legally. "how many a dictator can gas before we should eliminate them"? The answer is "we can't do it legally".

Now, if that's what you want to do, fine, but don't pretend that it is legal. When you do that, you undermine your position.

[VanillaRhapsody]

74. So you do not believe that Assad gassed civilians? Do I have that right?

seriously? May I suggest Occam's Razor as reading material for you?

[MNBrewer]

76. I didn't say that at all.

You should learn how to read for comprehension.

"when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

This, however, is always subject to confirmation and if the simpler one is refuted, the second must then be accepted, at least provisionally.

We do not have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions in this case, however. The theories are distinct and carry vastly differing assumptions. Neither has been proven conclusively, however it seems that most are falling on the side that it was Syrian government action that resulted in the gassing.

No matter. We cannot legally do anything about it in the way PBO proposes.

[heaven05]

69. yep

geez

[polly7]

62. Like the magic drones that only kill terrorists.

And once the bombs start, do you think the escalated fear and rage on both sides won't ramp up the violence and raise the chances for more civilians to suffer? "Sadly, some probably will" ... I don't think the prospect of it makes you all that sad. Just a feeling I've got. Anyone truly caring for children would NEVER want to place them at even more risk by dropping bombs (even super smart ones that never hit anything but targets .... like in Iraq and Libya, right?)

[MNBrewer]

67. If you can provide verifiable proof of how many "children will be saved", then we can talk

otherwise you're just using overheated emotional rhetoric to drag the US into a war.

[MNBrewer]

53. Perhaps the UN would be the appropriate place to ask that question.

Unilateral military action on the part of the USA is illegal, and is an act of war.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. No it isn't sorry....

the CiC has the war powers act....

it is not illegal....however...chemical weapons use IS. There is no "threshold" for it...the treaty was signed for Zero Tolerance. We don't take treaties lightly.

[MNBrewer]

57. You are remarkably ignorant regarding the legality of this threatened strike

1. War Powers Act itself may not be legal, but beyond that
2. The strike is illegal per the chemical weapons treaty. It gives us NO authority to strike them on our own.

[HooptieWagon]

83. Chemical Weapons treaty doesn't permit rogue vigilante enforcement.

It specifies the UN will conduct investigations and take enforcement measures. The US has no legal authority to take action unilaterally. Furthermore, given the history of US involvement in previous chemical weapons use, and the committing of war crimes, the US can't even claim a moral authority to take unilateral action.

[polly7]

84. Yes, it is. Also, immoral and dangerous.

Illegal

However frustrated US presidents may be with the UN Security Council's occasional refusal to give in to their pressure, the law is clear. The United Nations Charter, the fundamental core of international law, may be vague about a lot of things. But it is unequivocal about when military force is legal, and when it isn't. Only two things make an act of war legal: immediate self-defense, which clearly is not the case for the US The horrific reality of chemical weapons devastated Syrian, not American lives. This is not self-defense. The other is if the Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, authorises the use of force in response to a threat to international peace and security. That's the authorisation President Obama knows he cannot get - certainly Russia and China would veto, but right now a British veto would certainly be a possibility if Cameron wanted to respond to his public. And it's not at all clear a US resolution to use force would even get the nine necessary votes of the 15 Council members. The US is thoroughly isolated internationally.

Immoral

Pentagon officials have confirmed what logic tells us all: every use of military force threatens civilian lives. More than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in this civil war so far, and hundreds more were killed in what appears to be (remember, we still don't know for sure) a chemical strike last week - US cruise missile strikes won't bring any of them back, and more important, won't protect any Syrian civilians from further threat. To the contrary, low-ranking conscript troops and civilians are almost certain to be injured or killed. Reports out of Syria indicate military offices and more being moved into populated areas - that shouldn't come as a surprise given the nature of the Syrian regime. But the knowledge makes those contemplating military force even more culpable.

Dangerous

A US military strike on Syria will increase levels of violence and instability inside the country, in the region, and around the world. Inside Syria, aside from immediate casualties and damage to the already shattered country, reports are already coming in of thousands of Syrian refugees returning from Lebanon to "stand with their government" when the country is under attack. It could lead to greater support to the brutal regime in Damascus. In Kosovo, more Kosovars were forcibly expelled from their homes by the Serbian regime after the NATO bombing began than had happened before it started; Syrian civilians could face similar retaliation from the government.

A US strike will do nothing to strengthen the secular armed opposition, still largely based in Turkey and Jordan, let alone the heroic but weakened original non-violent democratic opposition forces who have consistently opposed militarization of their struggle and outside military intervention. Those who gain will be the most extreme Islamist forces within the opposition, particularly those such as the Jubhat al-Nusra which are closest to al-Qaeda. They have long seen the US presence in the region as a key recruitment tool and a great local target.

Published on Tuesday, September 3, 2013 by Al-Jazeera

Striking Syria: Illegal, Immoral, and Dangerous

Whatever Congress may decide, a US military strike against Syria would be a reckless and counterproductive move

by Phyllis Bennis

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/09/03-8

[ocpagu]

87. Yes, it is.

But go ahead and keep cheering for transforming Obama, the nobel peace prize winner, into Obama, the war criminal.

[ProSense]

59. As I posted in

the other thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023614397#post3), it's fascinating hoe 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.

People citing number of confirmed deaths to claim that Kerry is lying seem to think that changes the fact that Assad launch a chemical attack that resulted in mass casualties.

If he does it again and 500 people are killed, are these same people going to say: It's only 500 people?

[heaven05]

72. damn! There are some loud drums beating for war

[ProSense]

75. I'm noticing similar responses posted in rebuttal

I suppose the idea is that everyone should let all the misinformation fly, and any attempt to present the facts is equivalent to "loud drums beating for war."

If that's the implication, the it's utterly bogus.

[heaven05]

77. Is dropping more bombs

the answer? That's what, as a veteran, I'm asking. More deaths, collateral and otherwise to stop Asswad? That's the only way?

[Nevernose]

104. I'm going to say:

He's already killed fifty thousand people. So have the rebels he's fighting against. Many of them were civilians. How come it wasn't our business then, but it is now? Why are weapons A through Y, which have killed a hundred thousand people in the last couple of years, somehow worse than weapon Z?

It seems to me that an awful lot of people have convinced themselves that there's something humanitarian about dropping conventional bombs on people, and have further twisted logic to claim that a war isn't a war unless we say its a war, and as long as we don't use the word, it will never be a war -- just a humanitarian bombing run.

[Vattel]

80. Speaking of lies

President Obama on the right to strike in Syria without Congressional approval: “As commander in chief I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America's national security. I don't believe that I was required to take this to Congress.”

Candidate Obama (2007) pretending to respect Congress's war powers: “[T]he president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”

[MNBrewer]

82. Well, to be fair, he has changed the meaning of the word "imminent" to mean

"at some possible time in the future, hypothetically..."

[Vattel]

96. lol, good point

[heaven05]

90. I am beginning

to think that we humans must have in our DNA a hidden message. You shall war upon each other and kill as many as you can and find the flimsiest of pretexts to do this. We have since our origins always been at war with each other. Since the rock our implements of war have become more sophisticated, yet with the same outcome, death multiplied by more and more thousands and hundreds of thousands. Good guy here, bad guy there, wmd's over there, chemical weapons being used in an indiscriminate manner there. Terrorist camps here, training people that are a threat to national security. Gotta kill that bin laden even though we trained him and armed him. This shit is insane. Gotta stop Saddam. Gotta stop Asswad. We are a violent race, the human race. We hate and kill each other because of religion, race, lately for natural resources like lithium and oil and it show no sign that we're evolving into a better being. Will it ever stop?

[woo me with science]

105. K&R