By Judith Gayle | Political Waves
Well, you know, at least he asked. According to Establishment talking heads, Obama has the authority to bombard Syria without the approval of Congress. He did so in Libya, and all the kvetching about overstepping died quietly when Gaddafi was cornered. If he hadn’t brought this issue into the harsh light of the cameras, and the subsequent politicking from the most divided Congress in decades, we would likely see a military strike with loud (and largely bi-partisan) disapproval, and then quickly forget.
Once again facing missile strikes in the Middle East, I wonder if we’re finally able to connect the dots from the possibility of this unpopular military intervention back to the drones that launch under-reported missile strikes — called war crimes by many — with disturbing regularity. Probably not. Yet those who point out our own hypocrisy on this front are met with shrugs from neighbors who are either ignorant or oblivious of our international indiscretions, preferring some patriotic rationale to the brutal truth of America’s hegemony.
Unfortunately, this nation might bring some semblance of moral authority to the table if we weren’t dragging unpunished incidents of rendition and torture at Abu Ghraib by the heels, or turning a blind eye toward dictators that serve “American interests,” or tolerating banking practice that destabilized the global economy, victimizing us all. Being bigger and badder than the rest has its perks, mostly that nobody is leveling missiles at us as punishment for our sins, although — while we’re connecting dots — that pretty much answers the question raised in concert on 9/11: “Why?”
Obama made his case for a measured strike on Syria yesterday at an international press conference — from Russia with love — bringing the topic back to those who perished, including some 400 children, whom he suggested we must not intellectualize. He’s got a point. Pressing it, he raised the specter of Rwanda, a bruise to the conscience of the world and one Bill Clinton will carry with him until his end. On this particular, I’m in agreement.
There must be a price for the unconscionable use of chemical weapons, the assault on civil behavior and the betrayal of international agreement. There must be a penalty for Assad’s use of chemicals — on some eleven occasions, it appears, not just the one that we’re arguing over at the moment — but I don’t know what a useful response would be. It has been suggested that Assad’s use of WMD signals desperation on his part. We know how this goes. Once a leader goes hysterical, common sense flies out the window. In fight or flight stance, the human nervous system is coded to react rather than respond, and that’s usually with a knee-jerk that damages everyone around us along with ourselves.
As has been suggested, the gassing of innocents is simply the dermis covering the muscle of this issue, which is partly proxy-war with Iran along with concerns over waning power in this region resulting from the growing discontent of the Arab Spring. And if we lose face on this issue, further loosening our grip as a superpower, how might that escalate Iran’s behavior as it seeks nuclear capability?
Gaddafi’s fall in Libya, for instance, sent insurgents for hire, along with their cache of weapons, into Syria, escalating the problem of whom to support today. A destabilized Iraq, caught now in a growing and inevitable Shia/Sunni civil war, has become a pipeline for Iranian weapons and Islamic jihadists into Syria, which begs the question: if the rebels win, what will a post-Assad Syria look like? And arming the rebels, training them as some of the Hawks have suggested: how will that investment ultimately be used against us? (You shouldn’t have to think too hard about this one.)
Each event creates a ripple, enough events create a wave, and all threaten to wash away America’s tentative control of that area of the world. Indeed, our track record speaks for itself. To put a little déjà in our vu, we created Saddam Hussein by propping him up and giving him what he needed to become Iraq’s strong man; we made Osama bin Laden an expert in terrorism by supplying the Mujahedeen the weapons and training to take on the Russians. The Bushies did business with Assad, legitimizing him despite the brutality his dynasty had perpetuated in the region, preferring the devil-we-know to the 20 coups that erupted from the 1940s through the 1970s. And meanwhile, the Company, covert little CIA beavers busy destabilizing and/or arming this one or that one given the need of the moment, are working behind the scenes in all the hot spots, especially in Africa with its untapped resources. What tyrant are we creating now, I wonder?
This juncture finds us at a test of the “big stick” theory: are our threats just hot air? Our ability to stop Assad’s use of WMD aligns with our potential to halt Iran’s nuclear capability. Me, I don’t think we can do either using military means, which means we can’t stop them at all without bombing them into rubble. We can only bring them into an international coalition that would moderate their activity, but that feels a long way off. And assuredly, we cannot promote bringing Iran or Syria to the peace table by bombing, bullying or punishing and still hope to achieve cooperation. The political reality may be that we’re not looking for their cooperation, of course. Perhaps the dark overlords get more juice from keeping things at sword point, but their influence is fading, their days numbered. All this would be going more smoothly if they had the same control that they enjoyed in the last century.
Obama’s measured moderation for the last five years has pissed off almost everyone, in a nation not known for its embrace of moderation. If his decision to punish Syria, even in a manner both “limited and proportionate,” seems schizophrenic — as he himself mentioned, he ran to end war, not to start it — look around at your world, your neighborhood. Hell, look in your mirror. You’ll see conflict. You’ll see what’s right and what’s wrong with that image. In a world of duality, there will always be an enemy to fight, a cause to win, an error to correct. In political contests, there MUST be one, or the public — essentially peaceful in spite of themselves — cannot be sufficiently inflamed to respond, to be won, to be led. Because that is the default position of tribal humanity, if we want to evolve that design we must be very careful in drawing conclusions, in making judgments, in perpetuating conflicts.
It appears that Obama will not find sufficient votes in Congress to approve his proposal, but he’s not indicated whether he will take “no” for an answer. There is every reason for the American public to be war weary, to resist any use of national treasure outside of a nation struggling to stabilize itself, but I do find it illustrative of that schizophrenia I mentioned that the Republicans are boycotting action to punish the use of WMD, arguing that if George W. Bush had threatened Assad, he never would have used the chemicals. (Kind of like Saddam didn’t use them, she said snarkily.) So, to keep Obama from playing a hand of their own brand of Texas Hold ‘Em, they’ll vote him down contrary to their own policy of militarism. Amazing!
I was reminded of how old is this psychological division within the American psyche when I read an article in Salon, Bye-bye, neocons: Your fantasy has finally died. Do read it when you find time, and in regard to a word used — Cavalier, which is both a prototype and a mythology — you can find several examples of what I think of as “the Ashley Wilkes credo” at this link, illuminating the topic of our chilly Northern/Southern exposure. That essential division is America’s unique form of tribalism, much as what is happening in Syria is what the spiritual community would call “burning Karmic ribbons.” As we try to clear darkness for an evolutionary leap, the oldest, darkest Karmic gigs continue to plague us. In the Middle East, that’s the religious split that has driven them since their forefathers wrote of it, squatting in the sand. Here, it’s the slavery that built a nation on the bones of indigenous slaughter.
The question is, how do we prevent this march to violence? I doubt that we can on a pragmatic level, although having this international conversation is almost as huge a WMD deterrent to those thinking nobody would notice as carpet bombing Syria, seems to me. Bush’s wild goose chase didn’t impress anyone as deterrent to chemical use, since our Dubby’s delusions about Iraq quickly became obvious to the world, if not to FOX News and its devotees. And even as Obama tries again on Tuesday to make a case for this “heavy lift” — and to what conclusion, we can only speculate — the result may prove the kind of ripple that turns to waves and changes everything: the dead children of Syria may be the poster children that bring a legitimate question about use of WMD to the world’s attention.
There are things we can do on a 5D level, but they aren’t the kind of things we like best, immediate and on-demand. We can send prayers of love, healing, peace to the Syrian people. We can practice radical forgiveness and non-judgment, working to change our own magnetic resonance to a situation that both frightens and dismays us. As long as we respond in anger, as long as fear and judgment are our overriding emotions, duality is at play and fosters no vibration of peace to soften the situation. To create peace outside of ourselves, we must nurture it within with every attitude and action, surrendering our outrage and ego to the alchemical radicalism of love. To bring peace to the world, we must live it.
Oh, I know. That sounds all airy-fairy and far-off, useless in a real crisis that has us circling each other like dogs in a perpetual attack/defend posture. But there is power undreamed of within that practice. For instance some of you are aware of Masaru Emoto’s research on water crystals and their ability to absorb emotions. My eleven year-old granddaughter discovered this material recently and rushed to her little microscope, fixating on a glass of water in hopes of, eventually, catching emotion under the lens. It’s quite remarkable to review the results of this experiment, especially the beauty of those models that were bombarded with thoughts of love, hope and healing.
Think, now, about the kind of emotion that is being directed toward Assad, Obama and the various players in this current drama. One of my favorite channelers from years past referred to humankind as “little water bags.” Our bodies are over 50 percent water, surely they respond to the energy directed toward them. How do we change behaviors over which we have little control? Putting aside our anger, fear and tribalism, we can offer loving thoughts to change the resonance of the situation. We cannot forestall Karmic instruction but we can surely love our way through its consequences, for ourselves as well as others. And perhaps, in a time when water plays so large a role in our lives and futures, we can do the same with those waterways and oceans that worry us so.
No matter what happens, we will know exactly what to do next when we open our hearts, when we cease the negative-prayer of worry, when we depend on our intuition to inform us of essential truth. The world, A Course In Miracles tell us, is insane, and just lately it’s challenging to argue that point. Yet even as we are bombarded by the schizophrenic howl of duality, when we love our way out of conflicted emotions and into the path of peace, we’ve done what we came to do.
I’m glad to hear that your prayers for peace remain unshaken, Judith. Mine too.
Nevertheless, if you’ll forgive me for invoking the shadow of Ronald Reagan, there you go again.
Michel Collon, a Belgian journalist and author, has outlined how mass media and governments apply the “Five Principles of War Propaganda”:
1. Obscure economic interests.
2. Invert the victim and the aggressor.
3. Hide history.
4. Demonize.
5. Monopolize the news.
War propaganda thrives on weasely phrases like:
“I read a report…
“If the information is correct — and we can only speculate…”
“most everyone in the international community agrees…”
“the pundits say…”
On Sunday, White House chief of staff Denis McDonough was out trolling the TV news talk show circuit, braying about how the “common-sense test says he (Assad) is responsible for this.”
On Monday, no doubt purely by coincidence, you huff about Kerry’s fabulous “common sense” concept of Assad handing over Syria’s chemical weapons to the international community in order to avoid an airstrike.
Of course, Judith, you don’t write Establishment rhetoric, you write ABOUT Establishment rhetoric.
Strange that Kerry doesn’t think this “common sense” concept is so rad. Actually, he’s jonesing for a wee airstrike, “an unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.” Ok, just a little pinprick. There’ll be no more WMD aaaaaaaaah! But in the aftermath, Syria may feel more than a little sicker than it does already.
In any event, I honor your commitment to fairness and accuracy, the very jewels in your crown, when you say what you know and what you believe:
“No, I don’t know that Assad himself authorized any chemical use — and you don’t know he didn’t. The rebels could just as easily have used them but I don’t know that and neither do you. Me, I believe they were used — the pictures and the bodies are pretty strong evidence that something unspeakable happened over there.”
Fair and accurate enough. Except you DID say, “Assad’s use of chemicals” once and “Assad’s use of WMD” twice. Yes, you did.
Tell me, Judith, oh beacon of clarity. Were you writing what you know or what you believe?
You insist that “Nowhere in my piece did I suggest bombing was an appropriate response to this, or any, problem.”
Right, you did not need to. Obama, Kerry, legions of administration officials, and a gazillion presstitutes are out there doing the heavy lifting. You just sip your little teacup and write ABOUT it.
“Nowhere in my piece did I try to sell Iran as having nukes, or even wanting them, only that the Establishment thinks they do, which means they’re determined to stop them and that remains one of the underlying motives in all Mid-East activity.”
Oh, thanks. I can see how “if we lose face on this issue, further loosening our grip as a superpower, how might that escalate Iran’s behavior as it seeks nuclear capability?” is jus’ askin’, not ‘splainin’ nuthin’.
“Nowhere in my piece did I say I was in agreement with Establishment policy, only in the insistence that chemical agents are unethical and the world must find a way to eliminate their use.”
Of course, I can see how you’re just drawing that red line with Obama and damning the use of any agent that could produce such atrocity. And that’s why you’re urging Syria’s neighbor, Israel, to surrender its stockpile of WMD too, or else. Yes, Judith, you can.
“Last night I ruffled someone else’s sensibilities because I said I didn’t think we had enough information about what happened, perpetrated by whom…”
Apparently you had enough info (or was it “spiritual intel”?) to chant the mantra about “Assad’s use of WMD”.
Yes, Judith, you did.
I am not reading between your lines. I am reading your lines.
I am not projecting something in your motive. I’m saying WTF?
Yes, I am outraged. I’m outraged about the possibility of another war based what most likely is another pack of lies.
I’m outraged when “fortunate ones” spout unconfirmed allegations and then deny that they wrote them, when the words are right there in print on the page above. (Yes, I have archived the page.)
Hope Peggy gives you lots and lots of chuckles.
As-salam alaykum.
David
This all has given me the “shivers” that I experience whenever something is “coming through”.
Blessed Be.
Thanks, Jude for getting Kerry’s shift-of-heart up here pronto.
So lets hear it for transiting Klotho. . one of the three fates, for giving a new life (a new thread of life in myth) to what seemed a dead end dilemma. From Sagittarius (foreign countries) she trined trans. Mars in creative Leo as he squared trans. Saturn (conjunct the north node, no less!) in Scorpio (rebirth) today. Saturn assures us it will be a long and arduous process, but impeccably thorough in its final result. Hooray for mankind! We’ll get there even if it kills us I suppose.
be
Nicely put wandering yeti, and Judith, I had no problem understanding what you said in your original piece. Clarity is the jewel in your crown. Suffice it to say that the Parry article, in its entirety, has shown up on numerous astro-inclined blogs, and more than once on PlanetWaves; much like a political blitz during campaign season, and probably with the same intent.
My astrological guess for meaning in this blitz is tied to Mercury’s entry into Libra (around 3 AM this morning) as the Moon was forming a grand trine to transiting Neptune in Pisces, and Hades in Cancer who was conjunct the U.S. Venus. Mercury was making direct contact with the Super Galactic Center (SGC) in early Libra, what Phil Sedgwick calls the “cosmic vacuum cleaner”, known to be sucking up more than 30 galaxies (ours included) and “cannibalizing all of them”. Mercury would translate this sensation through the written/ spoken word as well as our thought processes wouldn’t he? Add in the grand water trine with U.S. Venus square the SGC (while simultaneously hosting Hades!) affecting our emotions, well, it could understandably keep one awake all night.
I would be remiss if I didn’t give a nod to the transformational energy-potent Libra Equinox (9/22/13) less than 2 weeks away; it being the follow-up from the December 21, 2012 directive toward Evolution. These speeded up downloads of dimension-changing cosmic forces can have bizarre effects on us human beings. Understandable that we could get a little out of orb during these times. Never mind, we will adjust and grow and learn from our experiences, and even laugh it all off at the end of the day. Wouldn’t miss it for the World!
be
Well, by golly! Common sense? What a concept!
WASHINGTON — A peaceful path out of the Syrian impasse began to emerge Monday, as support builds for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s proposal that Syria hand over its chemical weapons to the international community in order to avoid an airstrike.
Russian officials quickly embraced the proposal, as did the Syrian government, and in the U.S. House of Representatives, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), one of the most outspoken opponents of airstrikes, backed it as well…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/alan-grayson-john-kerry-syria_n_3894646.html?ref=topbar
There’s nothing airy fairy about firming one’s root to stay present when all the tortured egos of dualism counsel outrage. It seems to me that’s the challenge that’s before us as individuals. I can’t do anything to stop the Military Industrial Complex go through rigor mortis, but I can manage my own emotional responses.
Thank you for all the information, bodymindalchemy. Alan Grayson is a true hero, a public servant whom I appreciate and support. I agree with his assessment in this situation. I also read Parry.
As well, I read a report from one of Assad’s own soldiers that indicates that they themselves are eliminated if they use any religious language, tortured and murdered as regularly as they are asked to kill innocent citizens. If his information is correct — and we can only speculate — then Assad’s army acts independently of any particular plan, except to murder and punish, a pack of wild things let loose on the public. Meanwhile, most everyone in the international community agrees that there are a couple of dozen different rebel groups without cohesive leadership intent on ‘liberating’ the Syrian people and most for their own purposes, mostly extremist. When the pundits say there’s no one here to support, that’s there’s no “good” solution, they ain’t just whistling Dixie.
No, I don’t know that Assad himself authorized any chemical use — and you don’t know he didn’t. The rebels could just as easily have used them but I don’t know that and neither do you. Me, I believe they were used — the pictures and the bodies are pretty strong evidence that something unspeakable happened over there. Pretty clearly, if killing those who don’t think exactly as you do is justified by every side in this conflict, then murder by chemical is just another day in paradise, and downright expedient. Sandwiched between these two deadly aggressors are the Syrian people, like lambs to slaughter.
Nowhere in my piece did I suggest bombing was an appropriate response to this, or any, problem. Nowhere in my piece did I try to sell Iran as having nukes, or even wanting them, only that the Establishment thinks they do, which means they’re determined to stop them and that remains one of the underlying motives in all Mid-East activity. Nowhere in my piece did I say I was in agreement with Establishment policy, only in the insistence that chemical agents are unethical and the world must find a way to eliminate their use.
Last night I ruffled someone else’s sensibilities because I said I didn’t think we had enough information about what happened, perpetrated by whom, to put an American footprint on this situation. Even the politicians who have all the information are pointing out that they are making assumptions about who did what because its not entirely clear. They are reading between the lines and that’s hardly justification for a barrage of missile strikes.
It’s easy to tell how outraged you are about the possibility of another war, bodymindalchemy. I can certainly understand that. I don’t think that will happen, but it’s possible and that would be tragedy compounded. Me, I don’t think we have any business in the Mid-East at all, except for diplomatic installations. And I understand your condemnation of Establishment politics that has perfected the art of manipulation, blindsiding the public. But I would ask you to not read between my lines, either, projecting something in my motive not found there.
I don’t write Establishment rhetoric, I write ABOUT Establishment rhetoric. Sometimes I think, “Why bother? Why not just write: lies, lies, it’s all lies.” My version of a creative tantrum. But it passes quickly. Within the political lie, we will always find the truth as well as the original intent of this nation’s contract with the world, which rises well above what we’ve ever managed to make of it. As ever, the hunt is on for the dynamics that are pushing our buttons and giving us opportunity to change our consciousness and our direction.
As for doing Obama’s heavy lifting for him, I’ll let him handle that. On the other hand, I’m not going to make him the enemy — I did that with George W. Bush and discovered, after the fact, that without the machine behind him he’s just a flawed little human, subject to his own ego projections and established loyalties. What I’d fancied as evil proved truly mundane, and that lesson is not lost to me now. Obama has drawn to him people who think as he does; that’s what we’re seeing play out now. Assad, born into his position as dictator, is doing what he knows to do, as well. They are both prototypes, reflections of the human condition, much as was the title of my piece. I suspected that someone would misread that, but I must say, it still comes as a surprise.
So do I apologize for agreeing with Obama’s stand — however cynically it is viewed — that we need to draw a line at the use of chemical weapons? Absolutely not. We need to eliminate all WMD for that matter, including nukes and all the odious war toys. I don’t think humankind has the ethical capacity, at this point, to be trusted with any of them; and when it has that capacity, it won’t need them. And if I find out, at some point, that the film showing adults with rigid, flailing arms and children, mouths white with foam, have been photo-shopped or somehow distorted, you will have my apology for being duped — but not for damning the use of any agent that could produce such atrocity.
My prayers remain unshaken for peace in this situation, as well as this conversation. Thank you for your comments. (And if I have to be some odious sell-out in your mind, please make it Peggy Noonan — at least she makes me laugh!)
In paragraph that calls to mind another Judith (Miller, who used to work for a little newspaper in New York, and now serves as a panelist on Fox News Watch), entirely without evidence, you breathlessly assert:
“There must be a price for the unconscionable use of chemical weapons, the assault on civil behavior and the betrayal of international agreement. There must be a penalty for Assad’s use of chemicals — on some eleven occasions, it appears, not just the one that we’re arguing over at the moment — but I don’t know what a useful response would be. It has been suggested that Assad’s use of WMD signals desperation on his part. We know how this goes. Once a leader goes hysterical, common sense flies out the window. In fight or flight stance, the human nervous system is coded to react rather than respond, and that’s usually with a knee-jerk that damages everyone around us along with ourselves.”
“Assad’s use of WMD” and “Iran’s nuclear capability” are apparently beyond doubt for you. You and Obama are in agreement, facts be damned.
An NLP exercise in war propaganda for the “spiritual” readership of Planet Waves, the message of your screed seems to be: “No (don’t do it) but Yes (DO IT. The brutal dictator must be punished for all the dead poster children). WMD. WMD.”
For me, Judith whoever you are, your kvetching about “what is happening in Syria” is more than cavalier. It is obscene.
While seeking authority for a limited war with Syria, the Obama administration withheld from the American people the U.S. intelligence on the alleged chemical weapons attack of Aug. 21, amid assurances that Congress got all the secret details. But that doesn’t appear to be true, reports Robert Parry.
———-
Congress Was Denied the “Secret Details” Regarding the Alleged Chemical Weapons Attack
By Robert Parry
A U.S. congressman who has read the Obama administration’s classified version of intelligence on the alleged Syrian poison gas attack says the report is only 12 pages – just three times longer than the sketchy unclassified public version – and is supported by no additional hard evidence.
Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also said the House Intelligence Committee had to make a formal request to the administration for “the underlying intelligence reports” and he is unaware if those details have been forthcoming, suggesting that the classified report – like the unclassified version – is more a set of assertions than a presentation of evidence.
“We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know,” Grayson wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times on Saturday.
“And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The ‘security state’ is drowning in its own phlegm. My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I’m not the only one who feels that way.”
As I wrote a week ago, after examining the four-page unclassified summary, there was not a single fact that could be checked independently. It was a “dodgy dossier” similar to the ones in 2002-2003 that led the United States into the Iraq War. The only difference was that the Bush administration actually provided more checkable information than the Obama administration did, although much of the Bush data ultimately didn’t check out.
It appears that the chief lesson learned by the Obama administration was to release even less information about Syria’s alleged chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21 than the Bush administration did about Iraq’s alleged WMD. The case against Syria has relied almost exclusively on assertions, such as the bellowing from Secretary of State John Kerry that the Syrian government sure did commit the crime, just trust us.
The Obama administration’s limited-hangout strategy seems to have worked pretty well at least inside the Establishment, but it’s floundering elsewhere around the United States. It appears that many Americans share the skepticism of Rep. Grayson and a few other members of Congress who have bothered to descend into the intelligence committee vaults to read the 12-page classified summary for themselves.
Rallying the Establishment
Despite the sketchy intelligence, many senators and congressmen have adopted the politically safe position of joining in denunciations of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad (where’s the downside of that), and the mainstream U.S. news media has largely taken to writing down the administration’s disputed claims about Syria as “flat fact.”
For instance, the New York Times editorial on Saturday accepts without caveat that there was “a poison gas attack by President Bashar al-Assad’s regime that killed more than 1,400 people last month,” yet those supposed “facts” are all in dispute, including the total number who apparently died from chemical exposure. It was the U.S. white paper that presented the claim of “1,429” people killed without explaining the provenance of that strangely precise number.
The New York Times editorial also reprises the false narrative that Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syria’s Assad are to blame for the absence of peace negotiations, although the Times’ own reporters from the field have written repeatedly that it has been the U.S.-backed rebels who have refused to join peace talks in Geneva. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Getting Syria-ous About Peace Talks.”]
Nevertheless, the Times editorial states, “it was the height of cynicism for Mr. Putin to talk about the need for a Syrian political settlement, which he has done little to advance.” One has to wonder if the Times’ editors consider it their “patriotic” duty to mislead the American people, again.
Increasingly, President Barack Obama’s case for a limited war against Syria is looking like a nightmarish replay of President George W. Bush’s mendacious arguments for war against Iraq. There are even uses of the same techniques, such as putting incriminating words in the mouths of “enemy” officials.
On Feb. 5, 2003, before the United Nations Security Council, Secretary of State Colin Powell needled some intercepted quotes from Iraqi military officers to make some innocuous comments about inspecting weapons sites into proof they were hiding caches of chemical weapons from UN inspectors. Powell’s scam was exposed when the State Department released the actual transcripts of the conversations without some of the incriminating words that Powell had added.
Then, on Aug. 30, 2013, when the Obama administration released its “Government Assessment” of Syria’s alleged poison gas attack, the white paper stated, “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.”
However, the identity of the “senior official” was not included, nor was the direct quote cited. The report claimed concerns about protecting “sources and methods” in explaining why more details weren’t provided, but everyone in the world knows the United States has the capability to intercept phone calls.
Reasons for Secrecy?
So, why didn’t the Obama administration go at least as far as the Bush administration did in putting out transcripts of these phone intercepts? A reasonable suspicion must be that the actual words of the conversation – and possibly other conversations – would have indicated that the Syrian high command was caught off guard by the Aug. 21 events, that the Syrian government was scrambling to figure out what had happened and why, that the intercepts were less incriminating than the paraphrase of them.
That fuller story might well have undercut the U.S. case for taking military action. So, the administration’s white paper left out conversations reflecting the Syrian government’s confusion. The white paper didn’t even bother to put in the actual quote from the one “senior official” who supposedly “confirmed” the chemical weapons use.
Indeed, although the white paper states that its conclusions were derived from “human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting,” none of that intelligence was spelled out in the unclassified version. It is now unclear how much more detail was provided in the 12-page classified version that Rep. Grayson read.
In his op-ed, Grayson wrote, “The first [unclassified version] enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I’m not allowed to tell you what’s in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion. On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was ‘no.’”
So, what is one to make of this pathetic replay of events from a decade ago in which the White House and intelligence community make sweeping claims without presenting real evidence and the major U.S. news outlets simply adopt the government’s uncorroborated claims as true?
One might have thought that the Obama administration – understanding the public skepticism after the disastrous Iraq War – would have gone to extra lengths to lay out all the facts to the American people, rather than try to slip by with another “dodgy dossier” and excuses about the need to keep all the evidence secret.
President Obama seems to believe that “transparency” means having some members of Congress interrupt their busy schedules of endless fundraising to troop down to the intelligence committee vaults and read some pre-packaged intelligence without the benefit of any note-taking or the ability to check out what they’ve seen, let alone the right to discuss it publicly.
In my 35-plus years covering Congress, I can tell you that perhaps the body’s greatest weakness – amid many, many weaknesses – is its ability to investigate national security claims emanating from the Executive Branch.
Beyond all the limitations of what members of Congress are allowed to see and under what circumstances, there is the reality that anyone who takes on the intelligence community too aggressively can expect to be pilloried as “unpatriotic” or accused of being an “apologist” for some unsavory dictator.
Soon, the troublesome member can expect hostile opinion pieces showing up in his local newspapers and money pouring into the campaign coffers of some electoral challenger. So, there is no political upside in performing this sort of difficult oversight and there is plenty of downside.
And once an administration has staked its credibility on some dubious assertion, all the public can expect is more of a sales job, a task that President Obama himself is expected to undertake in a speech to the nation on Tuesday. That is why the Obama administration would have been wise to have developed a much fuller intelligence assessment of what happened on Aug. 21 and then presented the evidence as fully as possible.
In the days of the Internet and Twitter – and after the bitter experience of the Iraq War – it is a dubious proposition that the White House can rely on national politicians and Establishment news outlets to whip the public up for another military adventure without presenting a comprehensive set of facts.
———–
Robert Parry is an American investigative journalist. He was awarded the George Polk Award for National Reporting in 1984 for his work with the Associated Press on the Iran-Contra story and uncovered Oliver North’s involvement in it as a Washington-based correspondent for Newsweek. In 1995, he established the liberal leaning Consortium News as an online ezine dedicated to investigative journalism. From 2000 to 2004, he also worked for the financial wire service Bloomberg.
Major subjects of Parry’s articles and reports on Consortium News include the presidency of George W. Bush, the career of Army general and Bush Secretary of State Colin Powell (with Norman Solomon), the October Surprise controversy of the 1980 election, the Nicaraguan contra-cocaine investigation, the efforts to impeach President Clinton, right-wing terrorism in Latin America, the political influence of Sun Myung Moon, mainstream American media imbalance, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, the presidency of Barack Obama, the influence ofSarah Palin, efforts to rewrite history as well as international stories.
Parry has written several books, including Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & “Project Truth” (1999) and Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq (2004).
We astrologers are among the fortunate ones, be, schooled in hunting the patterns that show us not just a larger picture but an epoch one. And I’m confident that it’s no accident that many of us have turned to look at WMD, at the moral question of genocide and at the machinery of warring as part of our current “turning,” the energies pushing us to self-examine, increase awareness.
My only concern in the otherwise heartening rejection of first strike is that we’re turning away for the wrong reasons: as self-interested and isolationist. All the politics are wrong, but drawing that line on chemical weapons — (re)creating a world standard beyond which we can no longer turn our heads and tolerate, while actually DOING something to make such behavior unwise for those who ignore it — seems vital.
When the moving finger writes, perhaps it will point back at us, nailing us for our own abuse of these things, including the chemical warfare being perpetrated on us through our food and air, but it must be done if we’re to clear the blockages keeping us in this dark loop. This seems to me a first step of awareness, and one that’s broken through that check-mate energy of refusing to discuss these things because of some kind of partisan bickering … which, be, I agree does not feel random.
Not merely the Syrian people and Obama need our prayers, paola. As you say, “… all the involved ones.” Our own politicians need a jolt of Light, that’s for sure. And Assad and his army surely need loving thoughts to brighten their darkness, the scattered groups of sectarian zealots that comprise the rebel faction could use a balm of peace laid over their passions.
As Eric mentioned regarding Syria’s chart, this is a badass spot on the map. From a Karmic point of view, the places on the globe that have hosted humankind the longest — with the Mideast and Africa the cradles of civilization — have the most energy to burn off, the most density to clear. It is not an anomaly that modernity has such difficulty establishing itself in this region, steeped in layers of centuries-old guilt, tribal loyalties and vows of vengeance. All that’s happened “since the beginning” has imprinted itself into the skin of Mother and relief from seeds of violence watered with lifetimes of blood and suffering does not come easily.
The spiritual community has the capacity to loosen the grip of the old paradigm by its thoughts and actions in this regard; in fact, it has the duty, even from a self-serving point of view. What we drag behind us only keeps us from flight — individually and as a whole — and, as we allow the end of separation to inform us, putting it to peace Lightens us all.
Thanks for your comment, Mikeydom. As Maryanne Williamson said in A Return To Love, “Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure.” This is the time to step into our power and use it for the healing of all life.
Bravissima!
Especially because 5D work and work on changing our orientation and vibration is really the only thing that most of us can do and change IMMEDIATELY.
Too many of my peers have buckled under a “why bother” mentality, and I really think that if there is a cabal of puppet masters, this is their ultimate aim: Let us overwhelm you until you don’t even want to do the things you CAN do, right NOW.
This is so major. Thanks
“To bring peace to the world, we must live it”. Yes! Thank you for this wonderful, heartening piece, Jude – words like yours are much needed right now – one of your finest pieces ever.
And thank you for your wonderful comment, be. Was thinking as I read it how it’s becoming painfully conscious how much I’m at war with myself, and how this fact has been mostly hidden for me till now.
Oh the water.
Thanks, Jude! Nothing to add or say other than a prayer over the waters that r us.
Thank you Judith.
We can send prayers to the Syrian people AND to Obama and all the involved ones — us world.
Dear Jude,
I’m so grateful that YOU can connect the dots; see the big picture and translate it into a language/picture we can understand. You are a tireless warrior for humanity; never omitting a reminder to open our hearts, love our enemy and give peace a chance. You are my hero.
I wish I could remember which astrologer said something akin to: Duality exists in order to see the two extremes (polarity) clearly. Never in our lifetimes has polarity been more clear. Or more seemingly impossible to bridge. I’m pretty much in the camp that Chiron the centaur is leading the charge of that task, but it would be a hard sell right now.
Am I the only one that questions why this particular affront to our sensibilities has taken center stage in the world, rather than being cloaked in secrecy (as usual)? I’ve considered that the (2nd) Aquarius Full Moon on August 20th was conjunct the U.S. natal Sibly Moon (symbol of The People), and that it opposed Ceres in Leo as well as the Sun and Mercury. But until you said “we must NURTURE it (peace outside ourselves) with every attitude and action . .” Jude, I didn’t have a clear grasp on Ceres’ prominence in this chart. In Leo (heart) conjunct Sun (consciousness) and Mercury (think and communicate), the slogan Think With Your Heart seems apt and Ceres looks to be asking you to ask us to nurture that process.
Thursday’s New (Virgo) Moon was sextile Jupiter in Cancer and they formed a yod with a New Moon in Aquarius (at the apex/point position), that happened back in 2011. This sort of bridges time, connecting the past to the now, and although it wasn’t an eclipse, it followed one; a solar eclipse that, from Capricorn, opposed the U.S. Sibly Sun in Cancer and squared the Sibly Saturn in Libra. This really bridges time and should make us wonder about what the heck time is really. Well, we know that Time is ruled by Saturn in astrology. Still, why is this happening now? Why has it become so public? Could it be that the Universe wants us to think about it and become emotionally connected to what’s happening? May Be. Transiting Saturn is about to conjunct the transiting North Node, the path to the future.
In May this year there was another solar eclipse that aspected both the U.S. chart and President Obama’s chart. At 19+ Taurus it was conjunct the U.S. Sibly Vesta, highlighting what we invest (ourselves) in. In the President’s chart it was conjunct his Ceres. Perhaps he too is nurturing something. . something we invest ourselves in maybe. The U.S. Vesta trines the U.S. Neptune in Virgo (detail) and Neptune can symbolize an escape from reality; not dealing with unpleasant things. It can also symbolize compassion and empathy. The President’s natal Ceres, like the U.S. Vesta, was activated by the May eclipse, and his Ceres trines his Mars in Virgo. The President’s Mars, like everybody’s Mars, takes action. Could this be a form of bringing everybody into the position of being forced to look at details (oh those details!) of what is happening in the world? And make a thoughtful choice as to how to deal with it? I think so, and I think it is part of a process that can be deciphered through a thorough study of astrology; past, present and future astrology.
Chiron’s discovery chart has an ascendant that conjuncts the Galactic Center and a Neptune that conjuncts the Great Attractor. Powerful forces coming from the Universe. His discovery chart has the Sun conjunct the present transit of the North Node in Scorpio, and his Sun is also conjunct his Uranus. That Sun is in the path of the transiting Saturn who will be conjunct it by the end of the month. The U.S. Sibly chart has ties with the Chiron chart through Chiron’s Moon conjunct the U.S. Sun (and transiting Jupiter) in Cancer, and Chiron’s North Node is conjunct the U.S. Saturn in Libra. Chiron’s Discovery chart Saturn at 29+ Leo has been conjunct the fixed star Regulus which , by precession, has just moved into 0+ Virgo. Regulus symbolizes rulers and authority and by changing signs, from masculine Leo to feminine Virgo it bodes change in how leaders will lead.
All together it appears that (if I’m right about Chiron’s assignment) the time is now and that the U.S. has a primary role to fulfill in this “time”; compressed and yet spread out. It is just part of the overall pattern, and each planet, asteroid, centaur, point and star we come to comprehend the symbolism of, increases our understanding of why this time is so important for us as individuals, as collectives and as dwellers on Earth, and what we came here to do.
be