Drinking More Koolaid – Where is the proof in Syria?


I wrote "Drinking the Koolaid."  It was published in "Middle East Policy" in 2004.  The article is analysis of the deliberate deception employed by yhe Bush Administration in lying the United States into war with Iraq.

The same methods are being used now to drag the American people into another Middle Eastern war.  The corporate, self-servng media are leading the effort to "brainwash" Americans into acceptance of war against Syria.

The latest polling indicates that there is little support among Americans for ANY KIND of military intervention in Syria.  Perhaps people are tired of being lied to. 

I seldom agree with Eliot Cohen but he has an opinion piece linked to below in today's Washington Post in which he sensibly makes the point that Air Power is a brittle instrument and that the use of any level of missile strike against Syria will inevitably lead to greater and greater measures in order to avoid the appearance of weakness that failure of effect will create.  Richard Haas, president of the CFR said today that polling indicating a 25% level of support in the USA for intervention is flawed vecause the polling might suggest a big war and Haas thinks it will be a small war.  In fact, the 25% level of support in the poll is contingent on proof that it is the Syrian government that did the deed.  Without that proof the level of support for intervention is around 12%.

Where is the proof that the Syrian government killed all these people in the eastern suburbs of Damascus?  Where is the proof?  Show us the proof.  The Obama Administration says it has no doubt.  This is a matter of war and peace, of life or death.  Show us the proof.  Senator Corker stated  this weekend that all the social media indicate that the Syrian government is guilty.  Is that the proof?  Social media?  

"Based on photographs, videos and witness accounts
that emerged last week,
officials said they have“little doubt” that Assad’s forces carried out the attack." (Washpost)

Is that the "proof?"

We can't be shown the proof because of "sources and methods?"  BS.  The USG was eager to display satellite photography before it invaded Iraq.  Let's see the incriminating pictures.  Do they have SIGINT indicating a command to use to such weapons?  Issues of war and peace require the disclosure of intelligence secrets.   Do the rebels say that the government did it?  That would be interesting.

Is there a "Syria Group" to match the Bushies "Iraq Group?"  pl 





This entry was posted in Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Drinking More Koolaid – Where is the proof in Syria?

  1. Kerim says:

    That’s what I’ve been waiting for. Some kind of proof. I’m astounded that just saying that “there is no doubt, El Assad is behind it” is proof enough. Especially after the Irak fiasco.
    What is also disheartening, is the ease and enthusiasm with which government officials in a number of countries are ready to go to war. As if this were just a game of cricket.
    Actually I think it should be mandatory for officials involved in these decisions to spend a week in the front lines in a hot war. Just for them to get a sense of what they’re talking about.

  2. WP says:

    Now history is repeating itself. Hindsight shows that using our “might” only proved our fundamental weakness.
    Our inability to learn from experience is stunning We will see whether the American establishment or Assad is right after another ten or twenty years if we survive that long.
    As most others on this blog infer, it seems to me that military action in Syria will not end well for US.

  3. Utopian says:

    Great comment, Col. Lang. This morning the UN inspectors were reported to be on their way to the site of the alleged CW attack & were fired on by snipers. As you said in
    Drinking the Kool-Aid 2004, the fact that UN inspectors in Iraq were finding no WMD in the Iraq inspections in 2002/2003 was swept aside. This appears to be another parallel.

  4. PL! Several items that may be related to your post! First I think it is clear that US policy in Syria and elsewhere has almost nothing to do with promotion of 1st Amendment Freedoms or democracy or even representative secular governments. That is all a fiction utilized by many for their own reasons.
    A very interesting article has appeared in the NY Times about how of the 13 M or so GREENCARD holders in the USA over 8 M never intend to become citizens. A breakdown of the citizenship of these 13 M now would be of interest. And although the article points out that resident aliens [Green card holders] cannot vote they have no restrictions on campaign contributions or lobbying. Perhaps they dictate FP?
    And certainly of no particular interest except perhaps to me is that the countries of the MENA that were the source of most of my MENA friendships are in the past and present, Iraq, Syria, and Israel.

  5. Is the border between Iraq and Syria completely open?

  6. Jack says:

    Thank you, Pat. You provide your country a great service in sharing your views and expertise regarding the Mideast. I always read your blog for reality checks concerning that part of the world.
    When I was growing up it was an automatic response to believe in our government’s basic integrity.
    I wish the same were true now that I grow old.

  7. Bill H says:

    Perhaps I am niave, but even if Assad did use chemical weapons, should we use military force in Syria on the behalf of either side? My vote would be no. Where are the US national interests?
    I agree that proof is required if the justification for military intervention is use of chemical weapons but since, imho, use of chemical weapons does not justify military intervention then we should not intervene and such proof is irrelevant.

  8. Basilisk says:

    I was disheartened to see the time-honored “we have imagery evidence of activity at chemical storage facilities.” The problem is there is ALWAYS activity at chemical storage facilities. Where is the PROOF?
    I have that disconcerting feeling you get on a roller-coaster, those last few portentous clicks just before all hell breaks loose.

  9. kao_hsien_chih says:

    Astonishing though it seems, the Littler Bush (aka BHO) is even more contemptuous of the intelligence of the American people than the Little Bush (W). If we fall for this sort of not-even-nonsense, we’d really deserve the contempt.

  10. It seems that the Western powers may have now decided to operate on the principle of the Red Queen in ‘Alice in Wonderland’: ‘sentence first – verdict afterwards.’
    From the WSJ piece on the Saudi strategy in Syria and Lebanon, spearheaded by Bandar, to which Al Arabist linked in the previous thread, it would seem that one of the driving forces behind all this may be a clear determination in the Kingdom to escalate the conflict alike against the Assad regime and Hezbollah.
    According to the WSJ, ‘the Saudi plan is to steadily strengthen carefully selected groups of rebel fighters not in the radical Islamist camp, with the goal of someday seeing them in control in Damascus.’ Of course, with Bandar in charge, what could conceivably go wrong?
    It was reassuring – up to a point – to learn from the WSJ that ‘not everyone in the Obama administration is comfortable with the new U.S. partnership with the Saudis on Syria.’ The article recalls the involvement of Bandar in Iran-Contra, and the fact that the affair did not end altogether well. It also suggests that Bandar threatened Putin with a rerun of Afghanistan – but fails to raise the question of the later activities of Saudi-sponsored mujahedin against targets nearer home.
    Also in the previous thread, ‘walrus’ linked to a report back in January raising the possibility that planning had been going on for rather sophisticated ‘false flag’ operations designed to demonstrate that Assad had crossed Obama’s ‘red line’. It is interesting to look at this in conjunction both with the suggestions in the WSJ report of a clear Saudi determination to embroil the U.S. in Syria, and also the latest in a series of interesting DEBKAfile reports. This starts:
    ‘Five days after the event, a United Nations team of experts Monday, Aug. 26, start scouring a site in eastern Damascus for shrapnel left over from the poison gas shells or rockets fired by the Syrian army’s 155th Brigade last Wednesday.’
    That brings us back to the question of whether or not it is possible that a sophisticated ‘false flag’ operation could by some means of other plant fragments of munitions which could plausibly be supposed to have been fired by the 155th brigade. Would it in fact be so very difficult for networks in which Bandar is involved to access Soviet-era munitions which could plausibly be represented as having been fired by the Syrians?
    The DEBKAfile report anticipates that initial findings by the U.N. inspectors will be submitted by Tuesday or Wednesday morning, and that ‘the Obama administration made clear that it was not prepared to hang around and wait for the results of more extensive tests’. It claims that ‘limited, targeted Western military action is scheduled for the coming week.’ And it continues:
    ‘The position of the Gulf emirates and Saudi Arabia is less cut and dried. Riyadh doesn’t want a targeted strike but an early all-out offensive for overthrowing the Assad regime once and for all. This opens up the possibility of a separate Saudi-Qatari-UAE assault in Syria, coordinated with Washington, but conducted in different regions from those targeted by the US-led lineup. The result is potentially the pursuit of a broad-based pan-Arab offensive on the Syrian regime, alongside a surgical Western strike.’
    (See http://www.debka.com/article/23222/UN-experts-to-hunt-for-chemical-shell-shrapnel—as-West-poised-to-strike-Syria-this-week )

  11. John Adamson says:

    It’s my understanding that Assad was turning the tide.
    Is there any reason for him to use chemical weapons? How could he benefit by “crossing the red line?”
    Is it possible that some lunatic below him could give an order to use them and have it carried out? Could a rebel plant in the chain of command do this?
    None of this makes any sense to me outside of the possibility that the rebels did it themselves to bring U.S. intervention.

  12. Fred says:

    So how is President Obama going to stretch the Authorization for Use of Military Force to justify these attacks? Isn’t this an act of war against a sovereign nation with even less camouflage than used by the Bush administration? Coincidentally this shredding of the Constitution is happening on the 50th Anniversary of the march on Washington. I can’t imagine Dr. King, architect and leader of a non-violent civil rights movement, would be very pleased with our first black president (who appears just as trigger happy, if not more so, than his white predecessors).
    How much of the administration’s actions are influenced (if any) by Russia’s granting Mr. Snowdon conditional asylum? What is a likely Russian response? Have they deployed any naval units to the Med to trail our frigates? (Wouldn’t that have been a response of the USSR? Also, Russia still has 8,000 nuclear weapons, don’t they?) Provocation like this for an ‘anybody but Assad’ regime change seems particularly idiotic.

  13. Steve Pelletiere says:

    Keep it up Pat, for all the good it will do.
    Steve Pelletiere

  14. turcopolier says:

    David Habakkuk
    “This opens up the possibility of a separate Saudi-Qatari-UAE assault in Syria. ” No. They have no real military power, just a lot of equipment. pl

  15. Colonel Lang,
    That was what I suspected.
    My reading of the WSJ story was that Bandar was selling ‘snake oil’ to gullible people in Washington, and London, who wanted to believe.

  16. zanzibar says:

    We know that our political leaders are shameless scoundrels. We also know that many of the government apparatchiks that drive policy decision making are just panderers to power, primarily only interested in their career goals of “moving ahead”. National interest and principle long disembarked the ship of state. The oath to defend and protect the Constitution are mere words. Officials lie with impunity.
    What are the differences between the Democrats and Republicans when it comes to material national policy? Both corrupt and only interested in their petty tribalism. And what about the British, French and other western governments? Broke while amassing all the tools of tyranny yet lecturing everyone else with their false morality.
    And what about us citizens of this supposed constitutional republic? So willing to be conned repeatedly on all matters that directly effect our lives. Where are we in exercising our sovereignty?

  17. turcopolier says:

    David Habakkuk
    The peninsula Arabs have never had significant armed forces. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have always needed Pakistani and Bangla Deshi seconded soldiers to have anything like real forces. I think they are pretty much gone now. The modernised force of the Saudi National Guard is made up of beduins from the old Ikhwan tribes, but they are really an internal security force aimed at the Shia in the Eastern Province. They have two brigades of wheeled armored vehicles. None of these forces have any power projection capability and could not maintain themselves logistically in Syria. pl

  18. Medicine Man says:

    I’m seeing more of what you are reporting in the papers up here (in Canada), Col. They are just uncritically repeating how the administration is sure that the loyalists are behind the chemical attack.
    This is so familiar I feel like throwing up.

  19. Bill H says:

    In reflection, I’m surprised I didn’t get my hand spanked by the colonel. Lying to us is always relevant, and always outrageous. I have been focused on the snowballing stupidity with which BHO is handling this issue, and kind of overlooked the dishonesty part, but I should not have done. Between stupidity and dishonesty, I think the latter is worthy of the greater outrage.
    The reason for intervention is, imo, not a valid reason. So we will, evidently, be intervening for an invalid reason which is a lie. Does it get any worse?

  20. kao_hsien_chih says:

    The new neocons (the Obama people) are betting that Russians won’t go nuclear over Syria, I wonder. They might be right.
    Of course, the Austrians 100 year ago didn’t think Russians would go to general mobilization over Serbia, especially when Serbian criminality was so self evident, I suppose…

  21. steve says:

    Great article, thanks.
    “The latest polling indicates that there is little support among Americans for ANY KIND of military intervention in Syria. Perhaps people are tired of being lied to.”
    The opposition of Nato’s citizenry (I am assuming here that there is also strong popular opposition in France and the UK) is most likely of little concern to Nato national governments.

  22. steve says:

    @ Medicine Man
    Yes, it seems that Canada went down the rabbit hole awhile back.
    You are Canadian?
    OT–My wife and I recently returned from a long, meandering car trip through BC, Alberta, SK, and Manitoba. 43 years ago, I hitchhiked from Vancouver to Calgary along the TCH and thought it the most breathtaking scenery on earth, each bend in the road revealing a view more beautiful than the last.
    But this trip–we also headed up the Icefields Parkway to Jasper and it was even more breathtaking than the TCH.
    I saw a roadsign between Jasper and Edmonton–“Scenic Route to Alaska–next left”. Having been to every province, I was sorely tempted to make the turn to visit the only state I’ve missed.

  23. Maureen Lang says:

    Those portentous clicks are from the braking mechanisms built into the track the coaster is running on. They prevent any possibility of the coaster rolling backward as it is drawn up to the top of the ride & into the rapid descent downhill.
    Interesting choice of image, Basilisk.

  24. Karim says:

    I assume that Assad would have the chemical weapons under very tight supervision, no? A plant would therefore have to be very high-ranking. Syrians I know (pro-opposition) believe Assad’s brother Maher may be responsible because he thinks Bashar Assad is being too gentle (!!!). But I don’t buy it given that everyone on this website seems to be in agreement that Assad was gaining ground using conventional means. Still, any thoughts here on the possibility of a rift at the top?

  25. VLaszlo says:

    There is also the question of why the slaughter by Egypt’s generals of peaceful protestors with greater numbers of deaths and casualties does not even prompt a cut-off of billions of dollars of aid (the coup itself requires this cutoff by law), but the very uncertain events in Syria prompts the US and the UK to immediately launch serioous military threats and presumably immminent attackss on Syria. The big picture, with the Syrian regime having a string of military successes, and the issue of chemical weapons seemingly the only “usable” casus belli for precipitating the wider war the Saudis and jihadists desire, would make it illogical, indeed crazy, for the Syrian regime to use chemical weapons at this juncture. The whole affair smells worse than the manufactured incidents and lies used to whip up the Vietnam and Iraq conflicts (and they did not end so well). If we do attack, we will cause untold new miseries for the Syrian people; it will be costly for us Americans as well. We will certainly provoke new hatreds and blowback. The human and financial costs at home, never truly discussed in the US, are a lot more significant than portrayed.

  26. walrus says:

    Kerry has just waffled some more about Syria.
    Emotional hysteria and utter hypocrisy.
    Demanded negative proof from Assad – “prove that it didn’t use CW”.

  27. Stephanie says:

    I’ve seen two major reasons put forward. The first is that there is an international taboo against such weapons and we all have an interest in seeing this enforced. If someone could produce incontrovertible evidence that Assad did use such weapons, then this argument would at least make a certain amount of sense on paper, even though as you say it falls apart on closer examination.
    The second is a defense of American “credibility,” which boils down to: Obama has made foolish and vague threats related to chemical weapons in Syria. If we do not follow up said foolish and vague threats with violence, we are wusses (I think that was Bill Clinton’s word). So, we have to show Assad (and Russia, China, Iran) who’s boss around here. Lunacy.

  28. Fred says:

    Of course they won’t start with nuclear weapons. A couple of AAA regiments to protect thier naval base. Maybe a half dozen FFGs on ‘manuevers’. Me I’m wonding if they’ll turn a blind eye if some hackers can pull a NASDAQ denial of service attack like happened Friday. Perhaps Mr. Snowden has some convenient NSA account information for Mr. McCain and Mr Graham or sundry neocons. I wonder who he gave that too? That would be real economic warfare.

  29. Florent says:

    Dear Colonel Lang,
    I am long time reader (nearly since the beginning of your blog I think) commenting for the first time.
    Considering all that is at stake, could you please share with us some numbers about the readership of this blog?
    Thank you very much for your hard work, and above all, for your intellectual honesty.

  30. Medicine Man says:

    Born, raised, and live in British Columbia.
    I’m glad you liked your trip through BC. I freely admit I’m biased but I think our mountain-coastal rainforests are amongst the most beautiful scenery in the world — though my wife (a Michigander) speaks highly of Kentucky.

  31. Medicine Man says:

    I really hope this is all just stupid sabre rattling and we are watching Obama theatrically kick the can down the road, because if not I’m afraid we’re watching the US repeat its worst strategic blunder of this millennium without even a decade having passed to dull the memory.

  32. walter says:

    9% of Americans support military involvement in Syria…this reminds me of the Turkey when 95% of the population was against supporting US military using Turkey as staging ground for Iraq war, and the government did it anyway.
    Are there any democracies in this world? Who or what are governments of the world beholden to? Not the citizens

  33. PirateLaddie says:

    I figure a lot of the alleged public angst about yet another war ginned-up against some lesser breeds without the law has little to do with our “rightness” and obligations as the last super power standing. A growing number of Americans seem vaguely but deeply concerned that the last half century of wars has done little to enhance our wealth and glory.
    ‘Nam’s the last production that brought home the obligatory pelf, and that was in the form of war brides — useful to the returning warriors, and beneficial to the gene pool, but in no way comparable to the trophies & bling of earlier empires. We’ve already lost our eagles, not in the Teutoburg but the sands of the Middle East and the wastes of Afghanistan. Out on the street, there’s an emerging realization that our string of “good luck” has pretty well run out.

  34. DH says:

    “On Thursday afternoon President Barack Obama announced that the U.S. would be cancelling a joint military exercise with the Egyptian Army over its violent crackdown on supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood.
    Shortly afterwards, Egypt Independent reported that Putin had called an extraordinary session in the Kremlin to put “all Russian military facilities ‘at the Egyptian military’s disposal.’” The report, which cited several sources without providing any further details about them, also said that “Putin will discuss Russian arrangements for joint-military exercises with the Egyptian army.””
    “Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East, including Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, meanwhile, don’t want the U.S. to cut off support.
    Israel has argued to the Obama administration that support for the Egyptian military is a fundamental part of the Egyptian-Israeli peace agreement. Arab leaders, meanwhile, believe the Muslim Brotherhood poses a threat to secular governments throughout the region.”

  35. kao_hsien-chih says:

    The story that I kept hearing (although I can claim no expertise) is that Russians are not nearly so confident about their conventional weapons capability these days. If the Russians do send, say, a couple of AAA regiments, it’s not clear to me that they would necessarily be a game breaker for US/NATO air forces–at best, they would make Syrian air defenses a bit more of a challenge, but not so much that an air strike option would be infeasible–unless US/NATO leaders don’t want to risk an open military confrontation, even at a small scale, with the Russians, which I doubt. With regards the possibility of an economic warfare against the West, Russians have way too much invested in the well-being of western economies that, unless things got really ugly, they will not so easily resort to such sabotage at a scale that actually “bites.” (one presumes that “nuisance warfare” on the internets is already taking place, with or without Syria. the pain from such is likely small enough that it doesn’t really matter much.)
    So, it seems to me that Russians don’t have a really “scary” means of leverage against the West, unless they are willing to let things escalate dangerously. If they were to let things spiral out of control, there’s no reason that they should refrain from rattling the nuclear saber–if things go that far–since the only asset they have could really frighten the West. Neo-neocons are expecting that Russians won’t, given the price they would have to pay. But, if things do get out of control, I can see the “nuclear option” popping up on the table fairly quickly.

  36. Ursa Maior says:

    Even though the BHO administration has a foreign policy similar to Dubya’s I still think they are much more neoliberal, than a new twist in neocon.
    Although the saying of a once minister president of Hungary may apply: “After going to even more and more extreme left, you may suddenly find yourself on the extreme right gentlemen!”

  37. Bob Bernard says:

    By no means proof, but Doctors Without Borders considers there is evidence of a chemical agent attack.

  38. jdgalvez says:

    I read this and found it interesting although I am not sure about the prior take of the STRATFOR folks in the Syria matter. It seems a little closer to views expressed here than the national news media’s drumbeat for a strike:
    Friedman basically suggests that Obama has painted himself into a corner and must now act to maintain credibility or face serious consequences when dealing with North Korea and Iran in potential negotiations. That despite the fact that he acknowledges that no US interests are involved except for maintaining the seriousness of any “red line” statements the US may make. It seems like this could have been avoided with a simple acknowledgement that the use of the CWs or the culpability is uncertain. Any chance that this will be dialed back and a US strike avoided? If not, do you think the Lebanese hostage situation is back as suggested?
    He also mentions Libya as an example of a very bad outcome following the toppling of a government. Anyone with a sense of what the situation is there now? It seems like with the exception of the Benghazi episode it has been off the media radar for a while now.
    Probably too many questions there…

  39. VLaszlo says:

    That seems to be the chronology that I am using as well. I am not a fan of the Muslim Brotherhood and I understand the opposition to them. I don’t approve the actions of these governments in supporting a military that overturns relatively fair elections. Turkey, one of the key countries calling for attacks on Assad, was most appalled by the fall of the Morsi government. However, the US reaction, not cutting off aid (as required by, uou know, “law”) is in stark contrast to the rhetoric and threats and presumably soon the attacks the US and UK are p[resently engaged in against Syria.

  40. walrus,
    Looking at comments on an FT report I discovered that someone had posted a link, via the invaluable WayBack Machine facility, to the MailOnline report of the claims about Britam being asked to help provide ‘false flag’ evidence of Syrian use of, or intention to use, chemical shells. This was removed from the site after the Mail retracted the story in April.
    The circumstances of publication turn out to have been somewhat bizarre, in that the Mail went ahead and published the report on 29 January, the day after it appeared on the Infowars.com site, at a time when, as the story put it, Britam ‘had not yet returned a request for comment to MailOnline.’
    Either this was incredibly sloppy journalism, or the Mail were afraid that the Government would step in and prohibit publication if they did the normal thing and waited for the subject of a report to comment. They could perhaps have been confident, at the outset, that the likelihood that they could not defend the authenticity of the material was so remote that they did not need to wait.
    (See http://web.archive.org/web/20130129213824/http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2270219/U-S-planned-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-Syria-blame-Assad.html )
    Irrespective of the authenticity of the crucial e-mail which would implicate both the Qataris and elements in the USG in an attempted ‘false flag’ operation, however, the critical point remains that the possibility of some such operation quite patently cannot be discounted, unless a reasoned explanation, supported by evidence, of why it can be ruled out has been provided.

  41. Fred says:

    “…unless US/NATO leaders don’t want to risk an open military confrontation, even at a small scale, with the Russians, which I doubt.”
    “So, it seems to me that Russians don’t have a really “scary” means of leverage against the West, unless they are willing to let things escalate dangerously. … Neo-neocons are expecting that Russians won’t, given the price they would have to pay.”
    Killing some Russians would really do wonders for our relations, since they are not ‘scary’? The Russian’s are not the ones escalating things in the region, the Obama administration is. You should read their news releases relating to Prince Bandar’s attempted bribe of their government for support of the overthrow of Assad. The Russian’s don’t want more Saudi backed terrorist in Chechnya – who already killed plenty of Russians in Moscow, amongst other places. Perhaps they simply have a more accurate take of their own national interest than the US administration.

  42. Charles I says:

    Our FM John Baird is in Jordan as I type, have pronounced on this “dangerous new phase”.

  43. Alba Etie says:

    The interventionist “my way or the highway ” form a circular firing squad ? I still believe this talk of military strike is all kabuki for some kind of diplomatic outcome.
    ( Be kind jonst I hear you warming up “Don’t Get Fooled Again – in the near background.. )

  44. mac says:

    Speaking of Koolaid, what is James Lewis at the American Thinker drinking??? He penned an article entitled, “Is Iran behind the Syria gas atrocity?”
    Thoughts on how Iran will respond to a US led attack on Syria?

  45. kao_hsien-chih says:

    That’s what worries me.
    Given that Russia does not have many assets to inflict sufficiently “serious, but not that serious” pain on US, should things escalate out of control, which has dangerously high probability of taking place, it’s not too farfetched to think that Russians will consider some form of nuclear option–if only in form of “serious” threats–as the stick. If so, truly all bets will be off and World War I might wind up look like a child’s play at that point.

  46. different clue says:

    But by whom? And to advance what agenda?

  47. Medicine Man says:

    Well I feel safer already; don’t you?

  48. kao_hsien-chih says:

    PS. Basically my point is that the chances of things getting really ugly as consequence of Russians responding to Syria is rather small. If it gets ugly, and it probably will, it will be because of local factors in the Syria and in the surrounding region. BUT, in the improbable event that Russia does respond in a meaningful fashion, it will be pretty much the end of humanity as we know it. The neocons are betting that the latter won’t happen… but then, the Great Financial Meltdown couldn’t happen either, according to the same bright minds (in some cases, literally the same.)

  49. Jim Ticehurst says:

    Spot on Pat…It seems Clear that Players are Hoping ThaT President Obama will now Cross that Line He Laid Down.. with Syria ..So now ..we need the Proof..as you said..before His Ego starts WW 3..His response so far is Impulsive..and Irresponsible…At Least President Kennedy showed the “Proof” and disclosed Means and Methods over the Cuban Missle Crisis…We deserve no Less from President Obama…

Comments are closed.