The Common Ills: Like the trained monkeys they are, they sell the latest war

Friday, June 14, 2013

Like the trained monkeys they are, they sell the latest war

So Barack wants war with Syria.   And how do we learn of that?

David Usborne (Independent) reports:

“The president has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has,” White House deputy national security adviser Benjamin Rhodes told reporters in a conference call on Thursday evening. He said that US intelligence estimates that attacks using the chemicals had killed between 100 and 150 people.

I have no problem or issue with Ben. But the bulk of US voters didn't elect Ben president in the November 2012 elections. They elected Barack.

Where was he?   America's cover boy was in Miami on the 12th to do a fundraiser for the DLC -- in fact that was one of two Miami fundrasiers -- here for the other. And he also showed up for a campaign rally in Boston. Did Barack use up all of his clean undies on Wednesday? Was he unable to face the American people on Thursday because no one had done laundry?

Here's a novel idea, how about he finally stop campaigning and start governing? He's had five years to toy with the notion. Better idea, how about the American people start getting a say in true democracy? Meaning when lazy asses leave the White House, we vote on how much of a pension they get or if they get one. We should also be voting on whether or not they get security after they leave. In fact, as they're all millionaires now, we shouldn't be paying for security. Why the hell are we? If either Bush, Carter or Clinton gets killed, it's sad -- the way it's sad when anyone gets killed -- but it's not a national emergency. Not after they've left the White House. If they want security afterwards, they all have enough money to pay for it.

It's amazing, really, what the poverty stricken Mary Todd Lincoln has led to. That's what it all goes back to. Lincoln is shot and Mary Todd has nothing. Those days are long over and being president was never supposed to be a lifetime payoff, the equivalent of a lotto win.

Maybe Barack's refusal to do the job will lead Americans to look at the benefits and perks we give these lazy people for the rest of their lives just because they muddled through one or two terms in the White House?

If the US is going to arm anyone on any side of a conflict, that's news that needs to be announced by the occupant of the Oval Office.

If that task is beyond Barack, then he needs to step down.

Don't expect the press to make that argument, the US contingent is already well enlisted in the war on Syria.

Which is how you get Linda Wertheimer and Deborah Amos giddy and breathless on today's Morning Edition as "Deb" imparts 'wisdom' and 'insight' from Amman, Jordan. For those not good with geography, no, Amman is not located in the center of Syria or even in Syria at all.

Debbie tells us "the rebels" are focused on a coming battle with "the regime" -- let's not pretend that "Deb" is remotely objective.

"Deb" is becoming cheap trash. If that seems unfair, Deb wrote a little book that we praised on Iraq. It's a great book. But Linda asks her what the reaction of neighbors will be and Deb -- who's written no book on Turkey -- insists that the Turkish government will want this and that they've been besieged with refugees. Iraq's government doesn't want this but Deb doesn't tell that story or that Syrian refugees have also poured into Iraq (mainly the KRG). In other words, if you write a book on a country and pretend to care about it, you're cheap trash if you're on the radio only a few years later and you 'forget' to tell that the country you wrote the book on doesn't want war on Syria -- or that Iraq's government is scared to death that this move that's about to take place will further shatter Iraq.

But, hey, you don't get to become as infamous as Judith Miller if you worry about things like ethics. "Deb" Amos has proven she's not afraid to toss caution -- and yesterday's belief system -- into the wind.

"Deb" tells us there's proof and it's "been made public." Really? Did Deb see it and verify it from Amman?

"Deb" is how Linda refers to her, as though she just carried her wash out to the clothes line and is gossiping with "Deb" over the backyard fence.   Such professionalism, what a proud moment for NPR and journalism.

As for chemical weapons, seems to me in March we heard about the so-called 'rebels' using a chemical weapon on the village of Khan al-Assad.

"Deb" 'knows' there is evidence and that it's valid and real. Judith Miller 'knew' a lot of things too. And her war cheerleading took her from star reporter for the second largest paper in the nation (New York Times) to media pariah (a Fox News panelist).

Let's all ignore reality. Because that what the US media is doing. Anyone who forgot how Iraq was sold only has to look at the media today. Jon Healey's LAT piece? Carries the headline "Poll: Assad crossed the 'red line,' what should we do?" Really?

The administration's claim -- which note hasn't been considered strong enough for Barack to make it to the American people -- has been vetted and verified by the Los Angeles Times? Really? That's amazing.

This is how it was during Iraq too. No skeptical press, no questioning of the government's claims except for Knight Ridder.

Of course, Knight Ridder is no more. And we've told you forever and a day that McClatchy Newspapers may have bought Knight Ridder but it is not Knight Ridder.

If you're still missing the point read Lesley Clark's lovely stenography for McClatchy which includes:

The U.S. intelligence community determined after two months of investigation that it has “high confidence” that President Bashar Assad’s forces used chemical weapons, including the nerve agent sarin, at least four times, said Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes. At least 100 to 150 people are believed to have been killed, he said, although the casualty data is incomplete.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/13/193903/us-says-syria-used-chemical-weapons.html#storylink=cpy

The key to Knight Ridder was never the reporters. In our f**ked up belief system, we need to turn everyone into a star and a hero these days. What made Knight Ridder a success was a climate. That climate is gone. Questioning the administration, journalistic skepticism and so much more was not 'transferred' in the sale of Knight Ridder to McClatchy. In fact, McClatchy had newspapers prior to purchasing Knight Ridder. You didn't see a lot of questioning administration's claims in the papers McClatchy owned in the lead up to the war. All McClatchy's 2006 purchase of Knight Ridder really did was take one of the last journalistic outlets and turn it into so much pasteurized cheese like every other US outlet.

Saad Abedine and Laura Smith-Spark (CNN) do reporting -- but for how long before they're whipped into line? Today at least, they offer:

Claims and counterclaims came thick and fast Friday in response to the White House's declaration hours earlier that it believes the Syrian government has crossed a "red line" in using chemical weapons against rebels.

That pretty much says it all but note this key passage deep in the report:

The administration plans to share its findings with Congress and its allies, and it will make a decision about how to proceed "on our own timeline," Rhodes said.

The US is supposedly in the midst of a financial crisis -- food stamps are getting cut among other necessities -- and yet Beloved Barack feels free to commit more US tax dollars overseas without even checking with Congress which is supposed to control the purse.

Shamus Cooke (IHC) explained yesterday:

The long awaited Syrian peace talks — instigated by power brokers Russia and the United States — had already passed their initial due date, and are now officially stillborn.

The peace talks are dead because the U.S.-backed rebels are boycotting the negotiations, ruining any hope for peace, while threatening to turn an already-tragic disaster into a Yugoslavia-style catastrophe...or worse.
The U.S. backed rebels are not participating in the talks because they have nothing to gain from them, and everything to lose.
In war, the purpose of peace negotiations is to copy the situation on the battlefield and paste it to a treaty: the army winning the war enters negotiations from a dominant position, since its position is enforceable on the ground.
The U.S.-backed rebels would be entering peace talks broken and beaten, having been debilitated on the battlefield. The Syrian army has had a string of victories, pushing the rebels back to the border areas where they are protected by U.S. allies Turkey, Jordan, and northern Lebanon. Peace talks would merely expose this reality and end the war on terms dictated by the Syrian government.

No, this isn't about peace. It's about so-called 'rebels' losing. Because they don't have popular support. Two days ago, Finian Cunningham (Press TV via IHC) reported:

Western-backed insurgents are being destroyed or routed from villages and towns across Syria as the Syrian army moves swiftly on to its next objective of freeing the country’s second major city, Aleppo, in the north. That clash may prove a more bloody and protracted fight than the three-week campaign to retake Qusayr. But, given their withering loss of fighters and the severance from key supply routes through Qusayr, the eventual defeat of insurgents in Aleppo looks all but assured.
The recapture of Aleppo, and shutting off the NATO weapons supply line from Turkey in the north, would then prove to be the last stand for the foreign-backed mercenaries. These mercenaries have been terrorizing Syria since March 2011 at the behest of NATO powers and their regional allies, including Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. The Western agenda of regime change to oust President Bashar al-Assad is therefore, in a word, a dead letter.

The following community sites -- plus Jane Fonda, Antiwar.com and The Pacifica Evening News -- updated last night and this morning: