Another Warmonger Wants Syria Attack

Because “bipartisanship” is the coin of the realm in Washington, D.C., the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is trotting out former defense secretary Robert M. Gates to help cheerlead for the proposed American military intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Gates was nominated to his post in 2006 by…

Because “bipartisanship” is the coin of the realm in Washington, D.C., the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama is trotting out former defense secretary Robert M. Gates to help cheerlead for the proposed American military intervention in the Syrian Civil War.

Gates was nominated to his post in 2006 by former president George W. Bush – and kept there by Obama until Leon Panetta was appointed in 2011.

“I strongly urge the Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, to approve the president’s request for authorization to use force in Syria,” Gates said. “Whatever one’s views on current U.S. policy toward Syria, failure by Congress to approve the request would, in my view, have profoundly negative and dangerous consequences for the United States not just in the Middle East but around the world both now and in the future.”

Actually Gates has it wrong … as we’ve noted in numerous previous posts, approving this resolution is what would have “profoundly negative and dangerous consequences for the United States.”

First of all there is no compelling national interest at stake here. This is a civil war. Period. We had no business getting involved in the first place, and we certainly have no business directly attacking one of the belligerents.

Also, America’s warmongers – including “Republicans” John McCain and Lindsey Graham – are once again basing their case on dubious intelligence. They’re also wanting us to fight alongside al-Qaeda, the terrorist network responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on America.

These are among the reasons why the American people are overwhelmingly opposed to this war. It’s why America’s allies are not interested in getting involved. And why our generals are expressing grave reservations. And why the Obama administration is struggling mightily to convince the U.S. Congress to approve the resolution.

Yet the warmongers press on …

“We are all for American defending its people and its interests,” we wrote earlier this week. “The national defense is a core function of government outlined in our constitution. But in no universe is intervening in this conflict – on the side of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, no less – acting in defense of those interests. It would, however, encroach on the sovereignty of another nation, incite anti-American fervor in the Middle East and fundamentally make our people less safe.”

Related posts


The Catholic Church’s Non-Conversion On Gay Marriage


China: Ready To Work With Donald Trump


SC Congressmen Disagree On Cuba Policy



Smirks September 5, 2013 at 9:15 am

It is imperative we piss off Russia and goad Syria into launching missiles at Israel, because peace in the Middle East and red lines, or something.

SamAdams2010 September 5, 2013 at 10:39 am

Open up Syria to a gas pipeline through Turkey to Europe. Eliminate Russian energy power over Europe while denying Russia a warm water port on the eastern Mediterranean. Crimea redeux, but this time Russia hasn’t been fighting imperial war in three theatres and for 10 years.

OldJarhead September 5, 2013 at 9:31 am

Our reasons for helping/arming the Taliban back in the 1980’s was that the Russians were committing atrocities in Afghanistan. This allowed the Taliban to expel the Russians and start committing their own atrocities against Christians, Hindus, teachers, doctors, women who could read, and other such infidel undesirables for decades. Also set up numerous terrorists training camps including the 911 highjackers. So by all means lets repeat this mistake. Whats the worst that can happen??

Frank Pytel September 5, 2013 at 9:58 am

yep yep

Comrade1917 September 5, 2013 at 9:38 am

From Bank Guy in Brussels:
And Saudi Arabia is a central part of the Goebbels game in America’s ‘new
world order.’ The Saudis have much the same role in the Muslim world, as Zionist Israel does in the western world Saudi-tied money … like Zionist-tied money …

– Bribes and buys influence everywhere, and seeks to crush and silence and
slander opposition

– Spreads an ideology of hate and terrorism, and finances war and brutal
violent acts

– Supports dictatorial murder, while menacing to destroy any leaders in other
countries who do not toe the line

Saudi Arabia’s major international use of its billions of oil money, is to
fund Islamic schools throughout the world pumping an extremist version of Islam,
its Wahhabi cult that seeks to reverse the natural development of Islam, toward
more moderate versions as are common in today’s Turkey or in much of Indonesia,
the world’s largest predominantly Muslim nation.

In fact, Saudis are the deep-level hidden twins and partners of the Israeli
Zionists, both regimes having been set up by Anglo intelligence agencies

Saudis have the additional core function that with their oil, they prop up
the petro-dollar, the US dollar which will collapse when the Saudi regime falls

Which is the very centre of the US ability to buy products and energy with
printed ‘dollars’ which should be much less in value than they are taken at the

Saudi Arabia’s current rulers were installed by British intelligence at the
same time as Brits began to pump the Zionists, as the Ottoman Empire dissolved
after World War I.

The British picked out the Sauds, an extremist gang of Wahhabi cultists, and
pushed aside the moderate Hashemite families who had ruled the Muslim holy
places for centuries.

In its early days the Saudi rulers openly supported the Zionists, who were at
that time a scorned minority within Judaism (most Jews before 1940 were
anti-Zionist themselves). The Saudis actually helped set up the State of Israel,
and seem to remain the secret Arab allies of Israel today.

« In 1919, at the Paris Conference ending World War I … The Arab delegation
… was led by Faisal Saeed al-Ismaily … a Bedouin Sunni steeped in the
orthodox version of the religion … the third son of the Grand Sharif of

On Jan. 3, 1919, Faisal and Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist
Organization, signed the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation,
in which Faisal conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration, based on the
fulfillment of British wartime promises of development of a Jewish homeland in
Palestine, on which subject he made the following statement:

“We Arabs … look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our
deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted
yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard
them as moderate and proper. We will do our best, in so far as we are concerned,
to help them through; we will wish the Jews a most hearty welcome home.

Even today, the House of Saud’s allegiance to the Zionists who have massively
displaced the Palestinian population, remains intact. … »

The House of Saud:
British-Programmed Killer of Muslims, by Ramtanu

? September 5, 2013 at 10:02 am

What the hell happened to this John Kerry?

TontoBubbaGoldstein September 5, 2013 at 8:35 pm

TBG believes he ODOed or something.

? September 5, 2013 at 9:42 pm


Nicely done, plus there’s a nice double entendre, did you intend that? If you did, you are a friggin genius, Supra Genius.

TontoBubbaGoldstein September 5, 2013 at 8:30 pm


nitrat September 5, 2013 at 7:26 pm

Just curious, I can’t remember…did Sic’s then boss Mark Sanford support going into Iraq?
Of course, the big difference between then and now is the actual going in vs. cruise missiles.
I do not understand why McCain and Graham get their panties in a wad over the progress of the Arab Spring and Syrian Civil War.
Look at US history. It has not exactly been smooth sailing since the Constitutional Convention.
Those countries have been dictatorships forever. It’s not rational to believe they can “get” democracy without a lot of upheaval.
Even now, the USA has a major political party in Congress that does not believe in majority rule, as demonstrated by the Hastert ‘Rule’ and threat if filibuster to prevent bills from coming up for a vote.
A political party that does not believe in majority rule does not believe in democracy.


Leave a Comment