“800-pound AIPAC gorilla in the room”


by Syarif Hidayat

        Facts speak for themselves correctly and objectively that the Israelis through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists could bully American leaders and Congressmen to support and finance Israeli actions in the occupied lands and the Zionists hegemony in the Middle East as well as support its political interests worldwide, while American leaders and the congressmen could not be brave enough to stand up against the Israelis bullying!!

Faithful servants

          President Barack Obama, the other US leaders and the US-led western leaders as well as the US-led western media leaders serve the Zionist Israel day and night well!?
       “In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.” – Franklin D. Roosevelt

       “You can help us or we ‘will overthrow the world’.” – Chaim Weizmann, first president of the State of Israel.


        Baba Mezia, 114b “The Jews are called human beings, but the non-Jews are not humans. They are beasts.”

        Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: “Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night.”

       Midrasch Talpioth (fol. 225d): “God created them [Jews] in the form of men for the glory of Israel . But Akum were created for the sole end of ministering unto them [the Jews] day and night. Nor can they ever be relieved from this service. It is becoming to the son of a king [an Israelite] that animals in their natural form, and animals in the form of human beings should minister unto him.”

Protocol of the Elders of Zion —13, para 6


The N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story

       Don’t want to disappoint and most of all to avoid the wrath of their Zionist masters, the N.Y. Times scraps AIPAC from Syria story. A reference to the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC was mysteriously cut from a New York Times article published online Monday (September 2, 2013) and in print Tuesday (September 3, 2013) .

      The first version, published online Monday, quotes an anonymous administration official calling AIPAC the”800-pound gorilla in the room.” The original article, which is still available on The Boston Globe’s site, had two paragraphs worth of quotes from officials about the powerful lobbying group’s position in the Syria debate:

        Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

        One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

        The newer version makes no reference to AIPAC and does not include an editor’s note explaining any change, other than a typical note at the end of the story noting that a version of the article appeared in the Tuesday print edition of the Times.

       But journalists and media critics took note of the change. Around 5:00 a.m. Tuesday, Bloomberg View columnist Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted, “Unless, I’m mistaken, all references to AIPAC cut from this story.”

        Goldberg told POLITICO the missing AIPAC piece is “strange” and suggested that someone from AIPAC or the White House complained.

       “I don’t know what’s going on, but it’s very strange. It doesn’t make sense that it was cut for space in the print edition, because the AIPAC passage was quite newsworthy. Plus, there’s obviously no space issue on the Web. It seems plausible that someone from AIPAC, or the White House, complained about the accuracy of the passage,” Goldberg said.

        Goldberg said the passage is “accurate” and that according to his reporting AIPAC is lobbying on the Hill on behalf of President Barack Obama.

        “Conspiracy theories don’t make sense, though, because the Times is not particularly friendly to the AIPAC worldview, and has certainly covered AIPAC critically in the past,” Goldberg said. Bloggers MJ Rosenberg, Greg Mitchell, and the website NewsDiffs also noted the change.

       New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said the Times was looking into an inquiry made by POLITICO about the story, but had no comment yet. AIPAC declined to comment for this story.

UPDATE (12:24 p.m.): Times spokesperson Danielle Rhoades Ha emails:

        We regularly edit web stories for the print paper. This particular change was made to avoid repeating the same thought which ran in a page one story on Monday. That article entitled, “President Seeks to Rally Support for Syria Strike” included the following:

       “One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called the American Israel Political Affairs Committee “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, ‘If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line’ — against catastrophic use of chemical weapons — ‘we’re in trouble.'”

Sen. John McCain, left, and Sen. Lindsey Graham departed the White House following a meeting with President Obama.The original article: “Obama pushes for approval of Syria military strike”

        The White House pushed forward aggressively on Monday (September 2, 2013) for congressional approval of an attack on Syria as President Barack Obama got tentative support from one of his most hawkish Republican critics, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, for a “limited” strike — as long, McCain said, as the president did more to arm the Syrian opposition.

        After an hourlong meeting with Obama at the White House, McCain emerged with Sen. Lindsey Graham, R- S.C., to say that the two senators’ discussions with Obama in the Oval Office had been “encouraging.” He also urged Congress to support Obama in his plan for military action in Syria, saying that a no vote would be “catastrophic” for the United States and its credibility in the world.

        The words from McCain were a positive development for the White House and a critical part of the White House’s lobbying blitz on Syria on Monday. The day got off to a start with a 70-minute telephone briefing to the House Democratic Caucus by Secretary of State John Kerry; Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel; Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Susan E. Rice, the national security adviser; and James R. Clapper Jr., the director of national intelligence.

        There were 127 House Democrats on the call, nearly two-thirds of their total number. Democrats on the call said the debate was shifting away from whether the Assad government had used chemical weapons in a massacre last week — several Democrats said the material cited as evidence by the administration was persuasive — and more toward how should the administration should respond.

       “The debate is shifting away from, did he use chemical weapons, to what should be done about it?” Rep. Adam B. Schiff, a California Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a telephone interview.

There was also a strong sense on the call, Democrats said, that Obama needs to appeal directly to American public, most likely in a prime-time address.

       On the call, Kerry took the lead, portraying the horrors of chemical weapons and underscoring the consequences of inaction. Dempsey reviewed possible targeting, and how the military is planning strikes that minimize threat to civilians. He also reprised the argument that delay does not help President Bashar Assad despite his dispersal of troops and equipment. Clapper reviewed unclassified intelligence, particularly his view of why rebels could not have launched poison gas attack. Rice played maestro and traffic cop and assigned questions from lawmakers to the briefers.

        Although McCain and Graham have been sharply critical of Obama that a strike he is planning on Syria would not be extensive enough, many more lawmakers in both parties have taken the opposite approach, saying they were wary of a strike on Syria, no matter how limited.

        On Tuesday, Obama is to meet with the leadership of the Senate Armed Services Committee, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and their counterparts in the House.

“The 800-pound gorilla in the room”

        Administration officials said the influential American Israel Public Affairs Committee was already at work pressing for military action against the government of Assad, fearing that if Syria escapes American retribution for its use of chemical weapons, Iran might be emboldened in the future to attack Israel. In the House, the majority leader, Eric Cantor of Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, has long worked to challenge Democrats’ traditional base among Jews.

       One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC “the 800-pound gorilla in the room,” and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, “If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line” against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, “we’re in trouble.”

        Another official, who acknowledged having deep doubts when the president disclosed on Friday night his desire for a congressional vote — he said he first thought, “Whoa, why are we doing this?” — by Sunday had joined some other doubters in deciding the gambit was a good one, and would succeed.

        “At the end of the day, we’re not going to lose the vote,” a third official said. Given the risks, however, Obama’s White House team is wasting no time seeking lawmakers’ support. Although Congress is still in its summer recess, some administration officials traveled to Capitol Hill to meet with House members who might be available and wanted a briefing on Syria.

        Briefers included Antony J. Blinken, the deputy national security adviser, who is a longtime aide to Vice President Joe Biden; the deputy director of national intelligence, Robert Cardillo; the undersecretary of defense for policy, Jim Miller; Wendy R. Sherman, the undersecretary of state for policy, and Vice Adm. Kurt W. Tidd of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

       Obama and Biden, a senator for nearly four decades, will also be personally lobbying lawmakers. The White House plans to rely on supportive Republicans with intelligence backgrounds, like Rep. Mike Rogers of Michigan and Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, for an assist.

       Although such tactics reflect an inside lobbying game, the White House will also pursue an outside game of trying to sway a skeptical American public — as appearances by Kerry on five morning talk shows reflected. In addition, Obama will use his trip this week to St. Petersburg, Russia, for the G-20 summit meeting of major industrialized and developing countries, to publicly and privately press the case.

       Despite likely opposition from senators like Rand Paul of Kentucky, the White House is somewhat sanguine about winning the vote in the Democratic-controlled Senate, with support from a majority of Democrats and enough Republicans. The House is the greater worry, in part because even its Republican leaders — Cantor and Speaker John A. Boehner — have had trouble in the past passing their own priority legislation in the face of independent-minded conservatives.

      The rush of activity continues two days after Obama’s surprise decision to announce that he would seek the authorization of Congress for a strike on the Syrian government.

      Ahead of an Arab League meeting in Cairo, Kerry sought to mobilize backing for American-led military action at a meeting the group held on Sunday night.

       A statement that was issued by the league asserted that the Syrian government was “fully responsible” for the chemical weapons attack and asked the United Nations and the international community “to take the necessary measures against those who committed this crime.”

       To the satisfaction of American officials, the statement did not explicitly mention the United Nations Security Council or assert that military action could be taken only with its approval. But it stopped short of a direct call for Western military action against Syria.

         Before the meeting got underway, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, urged the international community to stop the Syrian government’s “aggression” against its people.

        Saudi Arabia has been one of the principal supporters of the Syrian opposition, and Kerry consulted by phone on Sunday with Prince Bandar bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief and secretary general of its national security council.

        The Obama administration’s calculation has been that a call for tough action by the Arab diplomats would enable the White House to argue to members of Congress that it had regional backing for military action and would make up, at least politically, for the British decision on Thursday not to join the American-led attack.


A sign of weakness and a sense of confusion

Photo       But Syria’s government on Sunday defiantly mocked Obama’s decision to turn to Congress, saying it was a sign of weakness. A state-run newspaper, Al-Thawra, called the action “the start of the historic American retreat” and said Obama had put off an attack because of a “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies.”

       Syria’s deputy foreign minister, Faisal Mekdad, told reporters in Damascus, “It is clear there was a sense of hesitation and disappointment in what was said by President Barack Obama yesterday. And it is also clear there was a sense of confusion, as well.”

       In some measure, part of the challenge that the Obama administration faces in trying to rally support at home for a punitive strike in Syria is the result of the deep ambivalence it has expressed about becoming involved in the conflict.

       Part of the White House strategy for securing congressional support now is to emphasize not only what Syria did, but also how a failure to act against Syria might embolden enemies of Israel like Iran and Hezbollah.

      Kerry, in his television appearances, said that if Congress passed a measure authorizing the use of force, it would send a firm message to Iran that the United States would not tolerate the fielding of a nuclear device, and thus safeguard Israel’s security.

      “I do not believe the Congress of the United States will turn its back on this moment,” Kerry said on the NBC News program “Meet The Press.” “The challenge of Iran, the challenges of the region, the challenge of standing up for and standing beside our ally, Israel, helping to shore up Jordan — all of these things are very, very powerful interests and I believe Congress will pass it.”

       Israeli officials have been concerned by Obama’s decision, but have been mostly restrained in their public comments. Kerry talked Sunday with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister.

      Both the House and Senate are expected to have votes sometime after they return from recess on Sept. 9, although Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, said the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would convene hearings on the Syrian issue Tuesday afternoon.

      While Kerry said he was confident Congress would vote to approve the use of force, Rep. Peter T. King, the New York Republican and a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said that if a vote in the House were held today, Obama would likely lose as a result of the “isolationist wing.”

       Much of the debate in Washington concerned the terms of the resolution the White House has proposed for authorizing the use of force.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen, a senior Democrat from Maryland, said that while the administration’s resolution limited the purpose of an attack to stopping the use of weapons of mass destruction, the measure left the military too much “running room” and did not set limits on the duration of the military operation.

       Congressional advocates of strong action to help the Syrian opposition, in contrast, have complained that the attack that Obama appears to be planning seemed to be too limited to have enough of an impact.

       As the White House consults with Congress, Kerry is planning a new round of diplomacy. He is planning to meet next weekend with European Union diplomats in Vilnius, Lithuania, and with Arab League diplomats in Rome.

       After Obama’s change in direction, the reaction in Britain and France has largely been one of surprise and confusion. The French government, which had said Friday that it would support a military strike, said it would wait for the U.S. Congress to vote before taking any military action.

       President François Hollande still intends to proceed with a military intervention of some kind in Syria, French officials said Sunday, but France will await the decision of Congress before taking action.

      “We cannot leave this crime against humanity unpunished,” said Interior Minister Manuel Valls, speaking on French radio. But given logistical questions of “intervention capacity,” Valls said, France must “await the decision of the United States.”

      “France cannot go forward alone,” he said. “There must be a coalition.”

A major question for military experts is what effect the delay in acting might have if force was eventually used by the United States.

      Jack Keane, a former vice chief of staff of the Army and a retired four-star general, said in an interview that extra time would work to the advantage of Assad, as the Syrian forces would have more opportunities to move artillery, missiles and other equipment into civilian areas that they knew would not be struck.

      Even Syrian command centers that could not be moved, he said, would be emptied of sensitive equipment and personnel. But Obama said that he had been assured by Dempsey that a delay would not affect the U.S. military’s ability to carry out a strike.


syriakurd823American Generals Stand between War and Peace

        Wayne MADSEN (USA) in his article titled “American Generals Stand between War and Peace” published in Oriental Review website, writes The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, General Martin Dempsey, backed by his Joint Staff generals and admirals, stood between a hasty and knee-jerk President Obama who was intent on launching a military attack on Syria and a tenuous peace in the Middle East.

        As of the evening of Friday, August 29, President Obama was on track to launch a sustained 72-hour cruise missile and drone attack on pre-selected air defense and other strategic military targets in Syria.

        Obama had been convinced by his national security adviser Susan Rice, UN ambassador Samantha Power, and deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes, all «Responsibility to Protect» advocates, that he could trump congressional approval for his attack by claiming that humanitarian operations do not require approval under the War Powers Resolution or Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

        Rhodes, who lacks any military experience, as is also the case with Rice and Power, is in his position because of his family ties. Rhodes’s brother, David Rhodes, formerly an executive with Fox News, is the president of CBS News. In addition, the brother of Obama’s special adviser, Dr. Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall, is Ben Sherwood, President of ABC News.

       Power is married to Obama’s former «information czar» Cass Sunstein, who developed methods to combat information unfriendly to the president through campaigns of «cognitive dissonance».

       Many of Washington’s insiders went to bed Friday night firmly convinced that Obama would give the final order to attack Syria sometime during the early Saturday morning hours of August 30. However, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, made a hurried trip to the White House during the early morning hours of Saturday to make one last final plea to hold off on any attack.

         Dempsey told Obama that the president’s military plan would not work. «If you do this, the plan will fail and you’ll get in deeper. And without congressional approval, you’ll be screwed,» Dempsey told Obama.

         Dempsey’s warning about Congress had merit. Already, 210 House members, Republicans and Democrats, signed a letter to Obama warning him not to attack Syria without congressional authorization.

        At least temporarily, Dempsey’s argument prevailed and Obama decided to hold off on any attack until Congress reconvened after Labor Day. Obama decided he would seek a congressional vote to authorize a military strike on Syria. Administration officials, including Secretary of State John Kerry and Vice President Joe Biden, began arms twisting members of Congress to approve Obama’s military operation against Syria.

      The Israeli Lobby organization, American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) weighed in with its considerable political heft to force members of Congress with whom its showers with campaign contributions, to fall in line behind Obama’s war plans.

      During the evening of September 1, The New York Times initially reported Israeli involvement in lobbying Congress on its website: «One administration official, who, like others, declined to be identified discussing White House strategy, called AIPAC ‘the 800-pound gorilla in the room,’ and said its allies in Congress had to be saying, ‘If the White House is not capable of enforcing this red line’ against the catastrophic use of chemical weapons, ‘we’re in trouble’». The newspaper quickly took down the report after it appeared in its web edition.

       AIPAC’s financial largesse bestowed upon members of the U.S. Senate is witnessed by its chief recipients being the loudest supporters of military action against Syria. The second largest recipient of AIPAC money from 2006 to 2012 — $772,327 — is Arizona Republican Senator John McCain, who has been a champion of Syrian rebels, including the human organ-eating guerrillas of the Jabhat al Nusra, an Al Qaeda-affiliate.

       Another major recipient of AIPAC cash is New Jersey Democratic Senator Robert Menendez who has rung up $343,394 in AIPAC donations. Menendez, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was tasked by the Obama White House to shepherd its Syria attack resolution to final approval.

        In temporarily overriding Rice, Power, Rhodes, and Kerry, who all favored a Labor Day weekend military strike, Dempsey incurred the wrath of the R2P faction that dominates the National Security Council. State Department sources began spreading the word that Obama would still attack Syria without congressional approval.


«Bandar Bush»

Barack Obama and CIA Director John Brennan.       The Pentagon, on the other hand, pointed out that none of the National Security Council «heavies,» Rice, Power, or Rhodes, had any military experience and that Kerry was channeling the wishes of his good friend Senator John McCain, who has consistently supported Al Qaeda-led rebels in Syria and Libya.

      Obama is faced with another grim reality. Some within the Pentagon ranks are so displeased with Obama’s policies on Syria, they have let certain members of Congress of both parties know that «smoking gun» proof exists that Obama and CIA director John O. Brennan personally authorized the transfer of arms and personnel from Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar al Sharia Islamist rebels in Libya to Syria’s Jabhat al Nusra rebels, who are also linked to Al Qaeda, in what amounts to an illegal «Iran-contra»-like scandal. The proof is said to be highly «impeachable».

       When the documented proof is released that Obama and Brennan, the latter the point man who oversees operations involving Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan al Saud and Al Qaeda, were personally aware that arms from the caches of the late Muammar Qaddafi of Libya were transferred to Al Qaeda forces in Syria for use in terrorist attacks, there will be demands for impeachment hearings.

       The arms transfer was directly involved in the Libyan Islamist rebel attack on the CIA annex in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, an event from which Obama has not been able to extricate himself.

      Bandar, who has been nicknamed «Bandar Bush» by members of the Bush family because of his close ties to them and «Bandar bin Israel» because of his close links to the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad, is the principal player in seeking the overthrow of the Bashar al Assad government in Damascus.

       Bandar is carrying out a Saudi policy that would see the Syrian government replaced with a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would circumscribe the rights of Christians, Alawites, and Shi’as, essentially how Saudi Arabia today treats not Sunni Wahhabis within its borders.

       One of the reasons why Obama and his cohorts have cracked down on whistleblowers in a manner unprecedented in recent U.S. history is to limit the fallout from military and intelligence professionals coming forth with details on how Obama, like his predecessor, has «cooked» the intelligence to pave the way to war. In this case, White House intelligence charging Syria for using chemical weapons is solely based on dubious signals intercepts provided by Israel.

        Not only is intelligence on the rebels’ use of chemical weapons in Damascus and Homs, sarin gas in Damascus and chlorine gas in Homs, being suppressed but National Security Agency and British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) intercepts from the Mount Troodos facility in Cyprus directly contradict signals intelligence by Israel’s Unit 8200 that purportedly show that Syrian army commanders ordered the sarin gas attack on Ghouta on August 21.

        The White House finds itself relying on the use of propaganda and disinformation to stake its phony claims. The BBC has been caught using photographs of dead civilians in Iraq to show «victims» of Assad’s alleged chemical attack. Likewise, Al Jazeera, a conduit for the Muslim Brotherhood power brokers in Qatar has shown footage of «victims» of Assad’s government covered with fake bandages and Hollywood «blood».

Men and woman in U.S. military are acutely aware that Obama and his advisers are lying in order to get the U.S. involved in another quagmire in a Muslim nation. This time, the generals and admirals are standing with their ranks in opposing another Obama «war of choice» in support of Saudi Salafist expansion and Israeli regional imperialism,  Wayne MADSEN concludes his article.

I am also very sorry for the fine young American men and women soldiers who are being sent into the wrongful wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and the intervention in Libya as well as covert operation in Syria, the wars that seem to benefit only the multiple interests of the Military Industrial Complex and the Zionist corporate world; and not the families of the young men and women soldiers! (HSH)


1.     http://www.politico.com/

2.   http://www.bostonglobe.com/

3.   http://orientalreview.org/




    Militants tell AP reporter they mishandled Saudi-supplied chemical weapons, causing accident

    Paul Joseph Watson
    August 30, 2013
    Syrian Rebels
    Syrian rebels in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta have admitted to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak that they were responsible for last week’s chemical weapons incident which western powers have blamed on Bashar Al-Assad’s forces, revealing that the casualties were the result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them by Saudi Arabia.

    “From numerous interviews with doctors, Ghouta residents, rebel fighters and their families….many believe that certain rebels received chemical weapons via the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, and were responsible for carrying out the (deadly) gas attack,” writes Gavlak. (back up version here).

    Rebels told Gavlak that they were not properly trained on how to handle the chemical weapons or even told what they were. It appears as though the weapons were initially supposed to be given to the Al-Qaeda offshoot Jabhat al-Nusra.

    “We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions,” one militant named ‘J’ told Gavlak.

    His claims are echoed by another female fighter named ‘K’, who told Gavlak, “They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them. We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

    Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of an opposition rebel, also told Gavlak, “My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” The father names the Saudi militant who provided the weapons as Abu Ayesha.

    According to Abdel-Moneim, the weapons exploded inside a tunnel, killing 12 rebels.

    “More than a dozen rebels interviewed reported that their salaries came from the Saudi government,” writes Gavlak.

    If accurate, this story could completely derail the United States’ rush to attack Syria which has been founded on the “undeniable” justification that Assad was behind the chemical weapons attack. Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News.

    The website on which the story originally appeared – Mint Press (which is currently down as a result of huge traffic it is attracting to the article) is a legitimate media organization based in Minnesota. The Minnesota Post did a profile on them last year.

    Saudi Arabia’s alleged role in providing rebels, whom they have vehemently backed at every turn, with chemical weapons, is no surprise given the revelations earlier this week that the Saudis threatened Russia with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi unless they abandoned support for the Syrian President.

    “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us,” Prince Bandar allegedly told Vladimir Putin, the Telegraph reports.

    The Obama administration is set to present its intelligence findings today in an effort prove that Assad’s forces were behind last week’s attack, despite American officials admitting to the New York Times that there is no “smoking gun” that directly links President Assad to the attack.

    US intelligence officials also told the Associated Press that the intelligence proving Assad’s culpability is “no slam dunk.”

    As we reported earlier this week, intercepted intelligence revealed that the Syrian Defense Ministry was making “panicked” phone calls to Syria’s chemical weapons department demanding answers in the hours after the attack, suggesting that it was not ordered by Assad’s forces.

    UPDATE: Associated Press contacted us to confirm that Dale Gavlak is an AP correspondent, but that her story was not published under the banner of the Associated Press. We didn’t claim this was the case, we merely pointed to Gavlak’s credentials to stress that she is a credible source, being not only an AP correspondent, but also having written for PBS, BBC and Salon.com.

    (Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.)

    August 27th, 2013
    US-backed False Flag
    U.S. ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime’

    Leaked emails from defense contractor refers to chemical weapons saying ’the idea is approved by Washington’
    Obama issued warning to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that use of chemical warfare was ‘totally unacceptable’

    Leaked emails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.

    A report released on Monday contains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.

    Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

    According to Infowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam’s Business Development Director David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

    It reads: ‘Phil… We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.

    ‘We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have.

    ‘They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record.

    ‘Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?

    ‘Kind regards, David.’

    Britam Defence had not yet returned a request for comment to MailOnline.

    Leaked: The email was allegedly sent from a top official at a British defense contractor regarding a ‘Washington approved’ chemical attack in Syria which could be blamed on Assad’s regime.

    Ron Paul: It was a US Fals Flag
    Former US congressman Ron Paul has said that a reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups.

    Washington has accused the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of launching a chemical attack against militant strongholds on August 21, and is preparing for what it calls a retaliatory military response.

    “We are not really positive who set off the gas,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday.

    “The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” he noted.

    Paul said that the case for a military intervention in Syria resembles the scenario used prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq when the US accused the Saddam Hussein regime of having an active “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) program. The intelligence was later discredited.

    “Just look at how many lies were told us about Saddam Hussein prior to that buildup. More propaganda. It happens all the time,” he stated. “I think it’s a false flag. I think really, indeed,” Paul said, referring to the reported use of chemical weapons in Syria.

    The US released an intelligence report on Friday claiming the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.

    On Saturday, President Barack Obama, who had previously described the use of chemical weapons as a “red line”, announced that he had decided Washington should attack Syria. The president, however, said he would seek congressional approval for an attack.

    by Evan McMurry | August 31st, 2013
    Pat Buchanan
    Former Richard Nixon speechwriter Pat Buchanan floated the notion that the reported use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army in their civil war against rebel fighters was a false flag operation designed to give western powers an excuse to intervene.

    “This thing reeks of a false flag operation,” Buchanan told Newsmax. “I would not understand or comprehend that Bashar al-Assad—no matter how bad a man he may be—would be so stupid as to order a chemical weapons attack on civilians in his own country, when the immediate consequences of which might be that he would be at war with the United States.”

    Buchanan added that he “didn’t know for sure” if the chemical weapons attack was a false flag or not.

    Putin: U.S. Charge of Syria Chemical Weapons Use ‘Utter Rubbish’

    Secretary of State John Kerry said earlier this week that the United States was convinced al-Assad had used chemical weapons in an attack that killed almost 1,500 Syrian citizens, one-third of them children.

    Buchanan is not the only American politician to doubt the veracity of this claim. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul wondered if the chemical weapons had in fact been used by rebel fighters.

  5. Rush Limbaugh Suspects Obama Conspired With Al-Qaeda to Frame Bashar al-Assad

    “If true, this is the setup of all time,” says Limbaugh
    Julie Wilson
    September 3, 2013

    Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh acknowledges building evidence that the chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged to frame President Bashar al-Assad.

    On Tuesday’s broadcast of the Rush Limbaugh show, the talk show host acknowledged reports from the Associated Press that the admitted intelligence on Syria’s chemical weapons attack was “no slam dunk.”

    He also announced he believes Obama may have been “complicit” in the attack and possibly helped plan it.

    Limbaugh expressed doubt over allegations Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. Limbaugh asked if the allegations are true, what does Assad have to gain?

    On Saturday morning, the talk show host received a note from a friend who spent time in the Middle East. In the note, Limbaugh’s friend vouched for Assad, claiming there’s “nothing in it for him,” and “he’s not that kind of guy,” describing the note as “almost a personal reference for Bashar.”

    Limbaugh initially dismissed the claim and filed the note away stating “everybody wants to do my job” and “everybody wants to influence what I say.”

    “Anybody can write me anything and say anything, says Limbaugh. I have to be very careful.

    “I just can’t accept what somebody sends me in an email and run with it. So, I ran the theory by a couple of people whose opinion on these things I respect over the years. They both said ‘Na, na, na, that’s a little crazy.’”

    However, Limbaugh changed his mind when he discovered another piece making similar accusations by a journalist named Yossef Bodansky.

    In the article Bodansky argues the “deception playing out in Syria is a deception similar to the one used in Sarajevo in 1995 to provoke air strikes against the Serbs for the benefit of the Bosnian Muslims.”

    According to Limbaugh, “If this is true, this is the setup of all time.”

    The article alleges the “US had intel involvement dating a week before the alleged chemical weapons attack in meetings that were anticipating a war changing event.”

    “We could be looking at a frame job. Pretty big setup,” says Limbaugh.

    “The rebels nerve gassed themselves in order to engineer a response that takes out Bashar, putting the US on the side of Al-Qaeda,” alleges Mr. Bodansky.

    Limbaugh’s skepticism of the White House narrative regarding the chemical weapons attack in Syria adds him to a growing list of people who believe the attack to be a staged false flag provocation.

    The talk radio icon joins a long list of credible experts including Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jerome Corsi, who see evidence the Obama administration helped staged the chemical weapons attack in Syria with Al-Qaeda to frame the Assad regime.

    This article was posted: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 2:18 pm

  6. False Flag Terror: ‘Only Rebels Benefit From Syria Chem Attack, as it may Greenlight Intervention’

    Wildly varying reports have emerged of recent chemical weapons use in Syria, with hundreds allegedly killed in the latest attack. This comes on the same day that the UN inspectors arrive in Damascus to investigate allegations of use of toxic arms.

    This claim about a chemical weapons attack by the extremist rebels is a desperate attempt at staging a false flag terror event. Assad’s forces are slowly winning. Using any type of chemical would only undermine these gains.

    Large scale foreign intervention in Syria would be a disaster because the leading opposition group in the country is the murderous al-Nusra front whose members would ethnically cleanse the country of all non-Sunni Muslims. At the moment Syrian Kurds are being expelled in the North East by this al Qaeda linked terrorist group.

    Related Info:

    Deleted Daily Mail Online Article: “US Backed Plan for Chemical Weapon Attack in Syria to Be Blamed on Assad”

    Gulf War Incubator Baby Lies:


    A Texas Republican lawmaker says the Obama administration’s evidence that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons against foreign-backed militants in Syria is “pretty thin.”

    Michael Burgess
    Representative Michael Burgess said Monday he was shown the evidence at a classified briefing on Sunday.

    “Yes, I saw the classified documents yesterday. They were pretty thin,” The Hill quoted him as saying.

    Burgess added the US claims, that the government of President Bashar al-Assad was the side that used chemical weapons, are “suspect.”

    In an unclassified intelligence report on Friday, the US claimed the government of President Assad launched a chemical attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21, killing hundreds of people. The Syrian government has strongly rejected the allegation.

    Russia said the evidence Washington provided for such allegation is “inconclusive,” arguing a “regime of secrecy” by the West is unacceptable.

    Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said the information provided to Russia was just “some sketches” and contained “no supporting facts.”

    Former US congressman Ron Paul also said that the alleged chemical weapons attack in Syria was a “false flag” likely carried out by the US-backed militant groups.

    “The group that is most likely to benefit from that is al-Qaeda. They ignite some gas, some people die and blame it on Assad,” Paul, a long-time Republican representative from Texas, said during a Fox News interview filmed Wednesday.

    Obama and his administration officials have launched intense lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill to gain US lawmakers’ approval for a proposed military strike against Syria.

  8. There could almost always be a Zionist factor in the US-led wars!

    THE ZIONIST Israelis force the USA into fighting wars for them: Israel has a history of fake terror blamed on third parties, hoaxes, and blackmail to trick or force the United States into fighting Israel’s wars for them. http://www.u-r-next.com/indx1.html

    “The evidence that links 9-11 to Osama is fabricated. The evidence that links 9-11 to Israel Spies is classified by the US Government. Israel has a history of fake terror blamed on third parties, hoaxes, and blackmail to trick or force the United States into fighting Israel’s wars for them.“ They could do it again on this war against Iran!

    ”The US Government, in keeping secret…the evidence that links the events of 9-11 to the arrested Israeli spies, is acting unconstitutionally and illegally. The Constitution does NOT authorize the US Government to keep the evidence of Israeli involvement in 9-11 from the people, nor does the Constitution authorize the government of the United States to manufacture fake evidence to justify a conquest of oil reserves in Arab nations. “

    ”By virtue of the classification of this evidence, the US Government stands with a foreign power, accessory to a crime AGAINST the people of the United States… SOMETHING IS ROTTEN, and neither the US Government nor the US media want you to know what it is.”

    America’s stalwart support of Israel is not limited to serving Israel day and night; and financial support to the tune of three to five billion dollars a year. It also becomes a shield in the Israeli military adventurism!!


    The actual winner of the war that followed the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq were the Zionists corporate world and Israel, which saw Iraq, its principal regional rival, destroyed at no cost to itself. The military victor of the war, but politico-strategic loser, was the United States, which destroyed Iraq, a country in no position to harm the United States, at a trillion-dollar cost, enormous human suffering and waste. This also applied to the US-led western intervention in Libya.
    Either Iran or Syria could be the next …

    Israel is satisfied with SHABBEZ GOYIM of the US and British armies!!

    A Zionist war criminal Avi Dichter, the former Israeli Minister of Internal Security, former head of Shin Bet (Shabak) from 2000-2005, and current member of the racist institution of the Knesset, issued an ominous speech to the Israeli National Security Research Center on May 26, 2010.

    Dichter told the audience: “We have achieved in Iraq more than we expected and planned. Iraq has vanished as a military force and as a unified country. Our strategic option is to keep it divided. Our strategic goal is to not allow Iraq to take its regional and Arabic role back. Iraq must stay divided and isolated from its regional environment. Nobody can ignore what we have achieved in this field. Iraq can never be the same Iraq before 2003.”

    Zionist ordered Genocide in Iraq

    Up to date more than 2 000 000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of the Zionist-orchestrated “Gulf War” since 1991. IN SUMMARY, the HUMAN COST of the Afghan and Iraq Wars is estimated below from the latest UN figures to now total 2.7 MILLION avoidable deaths. This is because the Jewish ideology, i.e. the Talmud, the Old Testament, the Torah, demands a terrible revenge – the total annihilation – of those who dare to oppose the plans of the Jews.

    After 12 years of killing sanctions the Zionists, using shabbez goyim of the US and British armies, moved in for the death blow against Iraq as an independent Arab state. This second aggression on Iraq waged in 2003 is a Zionist war of domination and occupation, of extending Israel´s lebensraum, of the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecy in the Torah of a Jewish state – “Eretz Israel” – stretching between the rivers Nile and Eufrat. http://radioislam.org/islam/english/index_iraq.htm

    Pope Francis
    Pope Francis called on world leaders attending the G20 summit in Russia to seek peace in Syria through diplomatic means and to lay aside the “futile pursuit” of a military solution.

    In a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is hosting the G20 summit, Francis said that lopsided global interests have blocked a diplomatic course in the Syrian conflict and have led to the “senseless massacre” of innocent people.

    “To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution,” Francis wrote.

    The letter follows an announcement earlier this week that the Vatican will host a vigil for peace in Syria in St. Peter’s Square on Saturday.

    The Vatican outlined Thursday its position on Syria to ambassadors accredited to the Holy See.

    “Confronted with similar acts one cannot remain silent, and the Holy See hopes that the competent institutions make clear what happened and that those responsible face justice,” the Vatican’s Foreign Minister, Archbishop Dominique Mamberti, told the 71 ambassadors regarding the chemical weapons attack that took place outside Damascus on August 21. The US and its allies believe the attack was launched by the Syrian government.

    Mamberti said the main priority was to stop the violence which he said is risking the involvement of other countries and creating “unforeseeable consequences in various parts of the world.”

    He did not mention possible military strikes by the US, but stressed peace in all facets of a potential solution to the violent conflict.

    In addition, Mamberti said the Vatican does not want Syria to be split up along ethnic or religious lines, and that Syrian minorities – including Christians – should have basic rights guaranteed, including freedom of religion.

    The Assad regime in Syria has long supported ethnic and religious minorities including Christians, Shiite Muslims, and Kurds. The Assad family and many regime officials are Alawites, followers of an offshoot of Shiite Islam, while most rebels and their supporters are Sunni Muslims.

    On Wednesday, the head of the Vatican’s Jesuit order, Rev. Adolfo Nicolas, said that military action by the US and France would ultimately punish the Syrian people.

    “I cannot understand who gave the United States or France the right to act against a country in a way that will certainly increase the suffering of the citizens of that country, who, by the way, have already suffered beyond measure,” he said.

    • They are The Best Warmongers money can buy!

      Facts speak for themselves correctly and objectively that the Israelis through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists could bully American leaders and Congressmen to support and finance Israeli actions in the occupied lands as well as support its political interests worldwide, while American leaders and the congressmen could not be brave enough to stand up against the Israelis bullying!!

      “Who will ever suspect then that ALL THESE PEOPLES WERE STAGE-MANAGED BY US ACCORDING TO A POLITICAL PLAN WHICH NO ONE HAS SO MUCH AS GUESSED AT IN THE COURSE OF MANY CENTURIES?” Protocol of the Elders of Zion —13, para 6 http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm

Write a comment or Leave a Reply. Thank You! Kind Regards Web Administrator/Editor

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s