• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • TP について/About
  • Topics/トピクス
    • Gender/ジェンダー
    • Globalisation/グローバリゼーション
    • Japan and Asia/日本とアジア
    • Japanese/日本語
    • Media/メディア
    • News/ニュース
    • Social Justice/社会正義
    • War and Empire/戦争&支配権力
    • Environment/環境
    • Other Stories/他の記事
  • Links/リンク
  • Contact

TokyoProgressive

Linking Progressives East and West Since 1997

東西のプログレッシブをつなぐ − 1997年設立  |  Linking Progressives East and West Since 1997

Obama borrows a page from Bush, threatens war based on false premises

August 31, 2013 by tokyoprogressive Leave a Comment

A roundup of the critiiques being made:

Institute for Public Accuracy 1

DANIEL ELLSBERG

Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1971. He said today: “What’s urgently needed right now — today, Friday, Saturday and Sunday — is people contacting their Representatives in their home districts and in D.C. demanding, first, that Speaker John Boehner call an emergency session of Congress immediately, and second, that there must be no presidential military attack on Syria without a Congressional resolution authorizing it.” See: “192 Reps., Including 73 Democrats, Call for Debate & Vote Before War With Syria.” 

Ellsberg added: “Without Congress back in session by Monday or Tuesday, it may be too late to stop a disastrous intervention by President Obama. A mere letter — no matter now many signers — or individual expressions of dissent by Representatives not in session will not do it: debate, hearings, evidence under oath and a Congressional vote are essential.”

FRANCIS BOYLE

 Boyle is a professor at the University of Illinois College of Law and author of Tackling America’s Toughest Questions. He said today: “The test the Dossier [PDF] uses is ‘high confidence’ — but the appropriate standard by the International Court of Justice (in the Corfu Channel case) is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The Dossier notes that it does not ‘confirm’ the allegations against Syria. So the U.S. intelligence community refuses to ‘confirm’ that the Syrian government did it. 

“Kerry claimed in his remarks: ‘We assess that the opposition has not used chemical weapons.’ But Carla del Ponte of the UN commission said they did. See: BBC: ‘UN’s Del Ponte says evidence Syria rebels “used sarin”‘ Similarly, Kerry claimed ‘We intercepted communications involving a senior official…’ But the Wall Street Journal already reported that came from Israeli intelligence.” 

ROBERT PARRY

 Parry is founder of ConsortiumNews.com and just wrote “A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War,” which states: “President George W. Bush misled the world on Iraq’s WMD, but Bush’s bogus case for war at least had details that could be checked, unlike what the Obama administration released Friday on Syria’s alleged chemical attacks — no direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named sources, nothing but ‘trust us.'” Parry’s books include America’s Stolen Narrative.

– – – – – 

Institute for Public Accuracy 2

Administration Claims on Syria Questioned

The Washington Post reports this morning: “The Obama administration appeared Wednesday to be forging ahead with preparations to attack Syria. It dismissed a Syrian request to extend chemical weapons inspections there as a delaying tactic and said it saw little point in further discussion of the issue at the United Nations.”

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out,” President Barack Obama said in an interview on the PBS “NewsHour” broadcast on Wednesday evening. “And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences.”

However, AP reported this morning: “The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no ‘slam dunk,’ with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.” 

PATRICK COCKBURN

Cockburn recently wrote the piece: “Only a Peace Conference Can Stop Further Bloodshed,” which states: “What armed intervention by foreign powers in Syria will not do is bring an end to the present bloody stalemate in the two-and-a-half-year-old civil war. But governments in Washington, London and Paris should realize that in one respect the slaughter by chemical weapons of hundreds of people in Damascus on August 21 is an opportunity as well as a crime. It is an opportunity because the chemical weapons atrocity and the crisis it has provoked show that the Syrian civil war cannot be left to fester.” Other pieces by Cockburn can be found at: independent.co.uk

MERYL NASS, M.D.

 Nass runs the Anthrax Vaccine blog and just wrote the piece “CBW attacks in Syria and Elsewhere: Proving Who Did It Is the Hardest Part.”

MUSA AL-GHARBI

 Gharbi is a research fellow with the Southwest Initiative for the Study of Middle East Conflicts based at the University of Arizona. He just wrote the piece “Red Lines Drawn with Syrian Blood,” which states: “As the Obama administration has made abundantly clear, the impending Western strikes in Syria will not be aimed at deposing Assad. The goal is not to resolve, but to perpetuate the conflict.”

 Gharbi also recently wrote “Toxic Discourse on Chemical Weapons,” which states: “Al-Qaeda has a long and well-documented history of obtaining, developing, and deploying chemical weapons—even in the Syrian theater. In May, Turkish authorities disrupted a Jahbat al-Nusra cell and discovered sarin gas in the possession of the militants; it is worth noting that this is the precise chemical agent supposedly used in the small-scale attacks in April, which the Obama administration attributed to the Assad regime. Following closely after this event in Turkey, the Iraqi government claimed to have disrupted another major al-Qaeda plot involving chemical weapons, these to be deployed on a massive scale. It is clear that al-Qaeda and its affiliates within and around Syria have access to chemical weapons, as well as the intent to deploy them.” See BBC report: “Iraq Uncovers al-Qaeda ‘Chemical Weapons Plot.’”  

– – – – – – –

 

REAL NEWS NETWORK

 

 

Any Attack on Syria Would Be Illegal, Increase Sectarianism in Middle East

Vijay Prashad: Possible missile strike against Syria has been a part of the West’s game plan since 1979 to weaken Iran for its independent path, but US military intervention will increase sectarianism in the region and disrupt fragile peace in Lebanon

Go to story | Go to homepage

 

 

Fool Me Twice, Shame on US

Michael Ratner: Obama administration asserting the use chemical weapons by Assad feels like deja vu of the lead-up to the Iraq War

Go to story | Go to homepage

– – – – – – –

FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN REPORTING

Heading to War With Syria

By Peter Hart 20 Comments
 

Horrific scenes of dead and injured civilians in Syria have been a part of the conflict there over the past several years, but the reports of a chemical attack of some sort last week in the Damascus suburb of eastern Ghouta have led U.S. policymakers and the Obama White House to threaten to attack in a matter of days.

There is still no firm public evidence that would tie these specific attacks to the Assad government. But all around the U.S. media the signs are clear that war is on the way. The front page of USA Today (8/27/13) displays U.S. bombs:

USAT-Syria

 While on ABC‘s This Week (8/25/13) viewers saw a computer simulation of an attack from a U.S. warship:

 abc-this-week-syria

One tendency in the corporate media seemed to be to jump to the conclusion that the chemical attacks were launched by the Assad regime, while admitting that perhaps this was not yet proven. Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson (8/27/13) wrote that “Obama has to punish Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad’s homicidal regime with a military strike”–before admitting:

If it is true that the regime killed hundreds of civilians with nerve gas in a Damascus suburb last week–and Secretary of State John F. Kerry said Monday that the use of chemical weapons is “undeniable”–then Obama has no choice. Such use cannot be tolerated, and any government or group that employs chemical weapons must be made to suffer real consequences.

Of course, providing convincing evidence that the attacks actually were the work of the Syrian government should be the first order of business.  But when news accounts, like one from  USA Today (8/27/13), open with this–”A limited strike against Syria might convince the Assad regime not to use chemical weapons again”–it’s hard not reach the conclusion that some have already made up their minds.  On CBS‘s Face the Nation (8/25/13), Reutersjournalist David Rohde said: “There has to be a price for gassing hundreds of civilians. There has to be.”

So far, the U.S. government has mostly made emphatic assertions–often anonymously.  In the August 26 New York Times, readers learned that “a senior Obama administration official said Sunday that there was ‘very little doubt’ that President Bashar al-Assad’s military forces had used chemical weapons against civilians last week.”

The report, by Scott Shane and Ben Hubbard, added:

The official, in a written statement, said that “based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.”

The statement, released Sunday morning on the condition that the official not be named, reflected a tougher tone after President Obama’s meeting at the White House on Saturday with his national security team, during which advisers discussed options for military action.

It is curious that this “tougher tone” comes from officials whom the paper will not name. 

John Kerry (cc photo: Ralph Alswang)

John Kerry (cc photo: Ralph Alswang)

Today’s edition of the Times (8/27/13) gives readers the headline “Kerry Cites Clear Evidence of Chemical Weapon Use in Syria.” Earlier versions of the piece were less definitive (the headline read “Kerry Accuses Syria of Chemical Weapons Attack”), and it was difficult to see just what the clear evidence was–other than the acknowledgment that some sort of chemical attack had occurred, which is hardly in dispute.

The paper went on to report:

In the coming days, officials said, the nation’s intelligence agencies will disclose information to bolster their case that chemical weapons were used by Mr. Assad’s forces. The information could include so-called signals intelligence–intercepted radio or telephone calls between Syrian military commanders.

 If there is such evidence, one would assume it would be made public as soon as possible. Instead, unnamed officials are telling the New York Times that they’ll share it someday soon.

What would more skeptical coverage look like? Patrick Cockburn of theIndependent (8/21/13) wrote that it is vital to be skeptical, since “the Syrian opposition has every incentive to show the Syrian government deploying chemical weapons in order to trigger foreign intervention.” Cockburn adds that there are plenty of reasons for the Syrian government to not launch a chemical weapons attack, but

the obvious fact that for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons would be much against their own interests does not prove it did not happen. Governments and armies do stupid things.

 

On Syria, Intelligence and Evidence

By Peter Hart 11 Comments

FireShot Screen Capture #599 - 'World News 8_27_ American Warships Moving Closer to Syria Full Episode - World News with Diane Sawyer - ABC News' - abcnews_go_com_watch_world-news-with-diane-One would hope that the lessons of Iraq might inform more of the coverage of Syria. But that’s not always the case. Over the course of the past week, the White House and various officials have been adamant that they have evidence that shows the Syrian government was responsible for the horrific attack last week that likely killed hundreds, and very well could have been a chemical or gas attack of some sort.

But too many journalists were treating what the government said it knew as if it was already actual evidence. On NBC Nightly News (8/27/13), Andrea Mitchell reported that “officials tell NBC News they have intelligence intercepts tying the attack to the regime, plus physical evidence.”

And on NPR‘s All Things Considered (8/27/13), Mara Liasson reported:

We now hear that U.S. intelligence officials are getting ready to release some intercepted communications that they believe will be even more evidence that it was Syrian President Bashar al-Assad who ordered this chemical attack.

What Liasson is “hearing” is so convincing that she apparently considers it “even more evidence” that Assad is responsible–though no evidence had been made public.

On NBC Nightly News (8/29/13), Chuck Todd explained:

The White House believes the case against Assad is clear-cut. And here’s why.NBC News has learned one of the key pieces of evidence that the U.S. has to prove Assad’s regime was behind the chemical attack is an intercepted communication that says Assad’s brother–a commander of the Syrian Republican guard–personally ordered the attack. That’s why, Lester, the president is so confident about where he stands on this.

 This is curious when compared to more critical takes, like a report from theNew York Times the same day (8/29/13):

American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack, and they tried to lower expectations about the public intelligence presentation. They said it will not contain specific electronic intercepts of communications between Syrian commanders or detailed reporting from spies and sources on the ground.

The Times went on to characterize the intelligence that would be made public as more like a “modest news release.” This proved to be an accurate description of the sketchy supporting document that accompanied Secretary of State John Kerry’s presentation on Friday.

An Associated Press story that day (8/29/13) reported:

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was “undeniable” a chemical weapons attack had occurred and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report.

But so much of the coverage treats the case as basically closed. Here’s how ABCanchor Diane Sawyer opened her World News broadcast on August 27:

The clock is ticking on US military action in Syria. The White House says a decision is near and US warships are in position. And the rest of the world is also joining the debate about what kind of action and exactly when. The goal, to stop a man using brutal chemical weapons 5,000 miles away.

It is, of course, entirely possible that the Syrian regime carried out these horrific attacks. But journalism should stick to the facts that are known, and refrain from treating government claims as if they are facts. 

Ten years ago, the intelligence shared by the Bush administration convinced many in the media that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was based on intercepted phone calls, satellite imagery and the like. It turned out to be completely wrong.

That doesn’t mean the government isn’t telling the truth this time around. But journalists would be better off starting from the premise that the Iraq lesson provides a cautionary tale.

When It Comes to State Violence, Too Much Is Never Enough

By Jim Naureckas 2 Comments
U.S. warship firing one of 110 cruise missiles at Libyan forces (photo: DoD)

U.S. warship firing one of 110 cruise missiles at Libyan forces (photo: DoD)

Time magazine’s Michael Crowley(9/9/13) offers an analysis of how the Syrian situation reflects on Barack Obama’s presidency:

Whatever comes of Obama’s confrontation with Assad, an even more dangerous confrontation lies in wait–the one with Iran. If another round of negotiations with Tehran should fail, Obama may soon be obliged to make good on his vow to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. “I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests,” Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March 2012.

But to his critics, Obama does hesitate, and trouble follows as a result. With more than three years left in his presidency, he has the opportunity to reverse that impression. Success in Syria and then Iran could vindicate him, and failure could be crushing. “The risk is that, if things in the Middle East continue to spiral, that will become his legacy,” says Brian Katulis, a former Obama campaign adviser now with the Center for American Progress.

Obama does “hesitate to use force”–is that his problem? Since 2009, US drone strikes have killed more than 2000 people in Pakistan, including 240 civilians, 62 of them children. Since Obama took office, they’ve killed more than 400 in Yemen; drone deaths in Somalia are harder to quantify.

Obama roughly tripled the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan, from 33,000 to 98,000 (Think Progress, 6/22/11). In 2011, he sent naval and air forces into battle to overthrow the government of Libya’s Moammar Gaddafi. In Iraq, Obama tried and failed to keep tens of thousands of troops in the country beyond the withdrawal deadline negotiated by the Bush administration (New York Times, 10/22/11).

This is a record that would not seem to indicate a particular hesitancy to use force. Oddly, Crowley acknowledges much of this: “Obama …sent more troops to Afghanistan, escalated drone strikes against Al-Qaeda terrorists,” he writes. But his military actions are presented as a sign of his unwillingness to take military action: “In Libya, he at first stood by as rebels fighting Muammar Gaddafi’s forces found themselves outgunned and on the run.”

No matter how many wars you engage in–Obama has had six so far–there are always wars you could have started but didn’t. Crowley seems to be suggesting that those unfought wars ought to take the blame for any problems Obama leaves behind.

 

 

 

Filed Under: War and Empire/戦争&支配権力 Tagged With: Assad, Chemical Weapons, Iraq, Obama, Saddam, Syria

Join the Discussion

Comment on this article or respond to others' comments.

You can post below or send to the mailing list at discuss@list.tokyoprogressive.org.

a) Please sign you name at the bottom of your comment, so that we know who wrote it.

b) To prevent spam, comments need to be manually approved.

c) Comments which are insulting, racist, homophobic or submitted in bad faith will not be published.

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Primary Sidebar

Search the site

Archives

Main Categories (old and most recent)

Alternative News Contributors/投稿者 creative Democracy Now Environment/環境 Featured Gender/ジェンダー Globalisation/グローバリゼーション Jacobin Japan/日本 Japan and Asia/日本とアジア Japanese/日本語 Japan Focus Japan News Korea/韓国 latest latest-j links Media/メディア Mp3 National Security Archive neoliberalism new News/ニュース Other Stories/他の記事 Social Justice/社会正義 Topics Uncategorized Video War and Empire/戦争&支配権力

Search deeper

Abe activities, protests, films, events Afghanistan alternative news Bush class issues and homelessness Environmental research fukushima gaza health care Henoko human rights Iraq Iraq, Afganistan and the War on Terror Iraq and Afghanistan, opposing the wars Israel Japan Korea labor issues Latin America Middle East military North Korea nuclear nuclear waste Obama Okinawa Okinawa Palestine peace protest protest and resistance racism/human rights radiation state crimes Syria Takae Tepco Trump U.S. War world news English ニュース/社会問題 人権 平和、憲法9条

Design and Hosting for Progressives

Donate/寄付

Please support our work. This includes costs involved in producing this news site as well as our free hosting service for activists, teachers and students. Donations/寄付 can be sent to us via PayPal or Donately. You can also click on the buttons below to make a one-time donation.




Work with us

TokyoProgressive
supports and participates in projects of like-minded people and groups directly (technical, editing, design) and not-so directly (financial or moral support). Likewise, we also welcome contributions by readers that are consistent with promoting social justice. If you have a project you would like help with, or if you would like to submit an article, link, or report on a protest activity, please contact us here.

Footer

All opinions are those of the original authors and may not reflect the views of TokyoProgressive. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for by copyright law in several countries. The material on this site is distributed without profit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Copyleft 1997-present: tokyoprogressive dot org

TokyoProgressive supports and participates in projects of like-minded people and groups directly (technical, editing, design) and not-so directly (financial or moral support). Likewise, we also welcome contributions by readers that are consistent with promoting social justice. If you have a project you would like help with, or if you would like to submit an article, link, or report on a protest activity, please contact us here.

Copyright © 2025 · Magazine Pro on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in