VIPS Warning to POTUS on Syria intelligence


"We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”
We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandumimmediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.
Secretary of State John Kerry departs for a Sept. 6 trip to Europe where he plans to meet with officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and other issues. (State Department photo)
The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today…"  VIPS


I am a co-drafter and signer of this appeal.  pl


This entry was posted in government, Intelligence, Syria. Bookmark the permalink.

70 Responses to VIPS Warning to POTUS on Syria intelligence

  1. optimax says:

    I’d love to see your letter published in the NYT or Washington Post.

  2. VietnamVet says:

    I applaud your efforts to discern reality behind the smokescreen of propaganda and to tell us the truth.
    Congressman Grayson interview on NewHour last night was astonishing for its clarity:
    For an explanation of why America is about to embark on its third failed war in the Middle East, I emphatically recommend Andrew Bacevich’s interview on Moyers & company:

  3. kao_hsien-chih says:

    Thank you, colonel, for doing the good work.

  4. Brien J Miller says:

    Bravo! Well done, sir.

  5. Tony says:

    I salute you for your patriotic efforts. I wish the members of the congress were half as patriotic and brave as you are.

  6. Castellio says:

    I consider this a much needed and historic initiative by you and your co-signers.

  7. Bandolero says:

    Thank you. In the name of humanity.

  8. Rd. says:

    may not agree with you at times, but my hats off to you sir…
    Given the three branches of government ignore the constitution, could one hope for JCS at least hold up the oath to constitution and perhaps consider resignation at the appropriate time?

  9. MRW says:

    Effing great letter.

  10. CTuttle says:

    Bravo, Col…! This grizzled old Commo Chief salutes you and everyone of you brave and principled Officers, in exposing the Emperor’s threadbare wardrobe…!

  11. Eliot says:

    Do we have any chemical weapons experts in the room? Matthew Asheville has posted an alternative hypothesis.
    He proposes that the casualties were caused by themobaric explosives.
    “Fuel air explosives can have similar effects of chemical attacks. The United States Defense Intelligence Agency produced a 1993 study about fuel air weapons. The study says, “the kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant…. What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.… If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common [Fuel Air Explosive] fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents. (Italics added.) This point cannot be emphasized enough. If the rockets identified by the Brown Moses blog are unexploded or partially exploded fuel air explosives, then the chemicals in the rockets could create a cloud as lethal as most chemical weapons”

  12. joe brand says:

    Recognizing that it’s easy for me to say this, doesn’t a military officer or intelligence agency executive who knows that the executive branch is building a case for war on a calculated set of known lies have a responsibility to make that knowledge public, directly and loudly?
    The really damning thing will be to see the United States go to war against Syria without congressional authorization, against the realities of the available evidence, and without any resignations or acts of refusal from the officer corps.

  13. JLCampos says:


  14. Walrus says:

    Thank you Colonel for you and your colleagues bravery. I do think that your group is still too kind to Obama – leaving him the option of blaming his actions on bad advice, presumably firing Clapper as the sacrificial lamb.
    My own view, which you may disagree with, is that Obama, like Bush, made his wishes known and relied on his acolytes to satisfy him.
    I am reminded of the account J.Robert Oppenheimer gave of his Sanskrit teacher, professor Arthur Ryder: “Ryder knew that a man could commit irretrievable error, and in the face of this fact, all others are secondary”. This, in my opinion, is likely to be History’s verdict on Obamas Presidency.

  15. Florent says:

    This is great!

  16. confusedponderer says:

    I listened to thee Grayson interview, and I was struck by the interviewer’s slightly incredulous question:
    “But … but … but … do you propose then – no action? What is the role of the US today … in, in a case like Syria, what is the role as leaders in the globe?”
    Unwittingly, he sums up everything that is problematic in Washington about this war. The US must do … something!
    After briefly talking a good game, Grayson’s to me ruined it by suggesting that the US, instead of bombing Syria, should arm the rebels, who, as Kerry tells us, are on their way of becoming secular or moderate.
    It is emblematic that the ‘liver eater of Homs’, Abu Sakkar, is leading the so-called moderate group Al Farouq Brigades. I found it startling that press people spent time and ink on the question whether he actually ate, as he said the liver, or the heart or lung – while to me the only relevant point to be made on the matter is that this guy is a cannibalistic criminal with a habit of brutally killing his prisoners. And a moderate, of course.
    The joke is that he is, of course, also an Islamist, and his moderation shows in that, after the Endsieg, he wants to hold elections before they put his favourite Mullah in charge. The radical Islamists of the Al Nusra Front sharply disagree with them on that they don’t want the elections, probably because they have their own favourite mullah.
    Obviously, glorious prospects for a post Assad era.
    It ought to come to Grayson’s mind that the rebels will do … stuff with these weapons, like killing people, including for instance executing their prisoners (before throwing the bodies in a well), of course, only if they cease preferring decapitations.
    Grayson is not a dove, he is just against bombing this time. But hey – nice tie!
    Notable also: Both Grayson and the interviewer take Assad’s use of chemical weapons for granted, and agree that Assad must be sanctioned in some way. The only disagreement they have is on how. Looking at the two, the administration has succeeded in generating a mainstream consensus on the matter. The bully pulpit at work.
    Grayson is an AIPAC creature. Perhaps one has to be in Florida, perhaps he is really into it. I can’t say.
    In this case he is against their goal of attacking Syria, and I see his reference to arming the rebels as an attempt at ‘compromise’, never mind that it is just a different folly in pursuit of the same pipe dream – regime change.
    But his opposition to the war on Syria suggests that perhaps Adam Horowitz of Mondoweiss is right when he writes the Lobby bit off more than they can chew.
    But then, they have been whistling in the dark for so long. So, from over here, good luck leashing the hounds of war this time.

  17. Farmer Don says:

    Good for you.
    Just as the USA was headed into a well needed era of “Peace Dividend”, Obama wants to do this. Unbelievable!
    Best of luck.

  18. JohnH says:

    No sign of your letter on the NY Times web site.
    The scum should replace their slogan about “all the news fit to print” with “only the news that won’t inconvenience the powerful.”
    I remember reading their coverage of an early Vietnam War protest. It was like they were covering an entirely different event, one that existed only in their imagination.
    It was one of the best learning experiences I had in college.

  19. DH says:

    Colonel Badass strikes again.

  20. stanley henning says:

    Here is my probably not to be read letter to the President:
    Dear Mr. President,
    As a retired Army officer who worked political-military issues in the latter part of my career I hope with all my heart you will back off the ill-advised attack on Syria. You hit the Assad regime and all you have is an open invitation to the Al Qaida and other terrorists on the other side – and they are equally heinous – this is a no win situation. Unfortunately much of the Muslim world appears incapable of joining the modern world. This is only one example.
    Stanley E. Henning

  21. walrus,
    I have with time come round to your and Michael Brenner’s view of Obama as a classic, if not indeed rather extreme, case of a narcissistic personality. However, on the question of whether or not he was consciously complicit in a kind of contemporary version of the Gleiwitz operation, it seems to me he has to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.
    However, and particularly if the account given in the VIPS letter of the coordinating meetings at Antakya is correct, it would seem that there are only two possibilities. Either Obama is consciously complicit, or critical elements of U.S. foreign policy are being run by a cabal of intelligence chiefs who are exploiting the gullibility, naivety, and indeed narcissism of a President who is simply not up to the demands of his position.
    The same either/or, obviously, exists in relation to David Cameron.
    The profoundest of thanks are due to the authors and signatories of this letter — an also to those serving U.S. intelligence officers who have put their careers on their line by supplying the information outlined in the letter.
    I would like to think there would be figures of comparable integrity and courage in British intelligence — but so far, there are no publicly available signs of this being so.
    If the leaders of China, Russia, Iran and many other nations have to base their planning on the assumption that the United States is capable of engaging in policies of ‘regime change’ on the basis of blatant ‘false flag’ operations, we are heading for an anarchic international system.

  22. The beaver says:

    I was thinking that it would be a great idea if every single American citizen send a copy (or a link) to his /her Congressman, woman or senator.

  23. Babak Makkinejad says:

    Rest assured that your last paragraph has come to pass.

  24. AK says:

    Col. Lang,
    Much heartfelt gratitude to you and your colleagues. Obviously the President must be apprised of the information which your letter presents so thoroughly. My question is: What steps have been taken to ensure that he is afforded the opportunity to digest this piece? In other words, I cannot but sense that, sadly, he is very well shielded as you say from this memorandum and other vital information by his policy-advisors in the White/Fun House. Are there effective avenues by which you hope to penetrate the bubble and reach the boy?
    Finally, thank you once again for clearly illuminating the difference between professional patriots such as you and your colleagues, and the “historical-figure wannabees” who have become the jellied, wobbly backbone of our nation’s government. Hopefully, there are still people like you in active service positions whose professional expertise and reputations are not for sale. If not, we’re all proper f-ed.

  25. VietnamVet says:

    You are correct. He did say that America should support the rebels without bombing Syria. After listening to him twice it didn’t register in my mind. You hear what you want to hear.
    As the rebellion drags on, survivors on both sides will be come more radicalized; especially, against the mad dog foreigners who were a cause of their suffering in the first place.
    It isn’t as if America hasn’t experienced this before in its own Civil War.

  26. Bandolero says:

    When you cite MJ Rosenberg to make a point that Grayson is an AIPAC creature, please remark that MJ Rosenberg apologized:
    “My Apologies To Rep. Alan Grayson
    6 Sep
    I have written many times that Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) was an AIPAC dupe, kind of a House version of Al Franken.
    In fact, he gave plenty of reasons for me think so.
    But now he has become a hero. He is fighting AIPAC on its Syria war resolution. Not only that, he is calling AIPAC out by name, saying that AIPAC “falls by the wayside” when the American public weighs in.
    Bravo, Rep. Grayson, whose district is in south Florida of all places.
    If the peace forces win, he will be a big part of the reason.
    I am so happy to have been wrong about him.”

  27. Charles I says:

    Fight the good fight sir.

  28. JohnH says:

    “it would seem that there are only two possibilities. Either Obama is consciously complicit, or critical elements of U.S. foreign policy are being run by a cabal of intelligence chiefs who are exploiting the gullibility, naivety, and indeed narcissism of a President who is simply not up to the demands of his position.”
    You might watch the video of Obama honoring the fallen CIA agents at Dover AFB, particularly the last minute. Then judge for yourself.
    It shows him to be marching in step, not presiding over the event. I cannot imagine the leader of any nation behaving this way.

  29. joe brand says:

    CNN just broadcast the White House’s video “evidence” of a sarin attack, and it was a grim joke: bodies writhing on pavement, hundreds of “helpers” rushing around in t-shirts and flip-flops without being harmed in any way.

  30. Charles says:

    Col Lang,
    Thank you. I have added Consortium News to my browser favorites.

  31. Walrus says:

    Very well said, yes, there seem to Two possibilities regarding the instigation of this situation. It wonder which is worse? A weak President in thrall to a cabal or a modern version of A Shakespearean Richard III?
    The pressures being placed on serving intelligence staff in both U.S and U. K. must be unbearable at present and the only consolation they have is the same as Alan Brooke’s – that he would cease to be of any use to Churchill ( and country) if he didn’t tell him what he really thought just to avoid another row.
    The supreme irony in all this is that America was prime mover in developing the concept of international law and the U. N.

  32. different clue says:

    If Grayson is only strongly against starting us a new war by attacking Syria, that is still good and useful all by itself.
    Even if he still supports “arming the rebels”, his opposing the planned Obama attack may help prevent the outbreak of the wider war and may leave the Assad government-military intact enough to continue receiving and integrating arms and support from Russia/Iran/China. And as long as that remains the case, it remains possible for Russia/Iran/China to aid the Syrian government so heavily and overwhelmingly as to flood out and overwhelm all aid to the rebels.
    So he still supports “arm the rebels”? I will live with that given his strong support for “prevent the attack”. If we all can really prevent the attack, we will have bought time and space for all the right people to heighten public doubt about who really used the gas and about who the rebels really are and what they really want.
    Perhaps I am just too easy to please.

  33. different clue says:

    I remember reading/hearing claims that Syrian doctors near the affected area treated non-dead victims with atropine and the atropine worked. If that is really true, the question arises: do inhaled
    or skin-absorbed ethylene oxide and propylene oxide work the same was as nerve gas and would atropine treat eth-ox and prop-ox exposure as effectively as atropine treats nerve-agent exposure? If so, then eth-ox and prop-ox could be as likely as nerve agent. If not (assuming Syrian doctors really did treat successfully the non-dead patients with atropine) then eth-ox and prop-ox would seem to be ruled out.
    Maybe the knowledge of doctors could be invited
    along with the knowledge of chemical weapons experts?
    And if the UN analysts discover traces of nerve agent rather than eth-ox and prop-ox in the taken samples then the question still arises: who diddit?

  34. different clue says:

    But if Congress can vote “no” so overwhelmingly as to scare the Obama group out of attacking Syria,
    then China/Russia/Iran/others will see a people and their Congress able to restrain an outlaw administration and might take account of that in their planning too.

  35. David says:

    A Russian friend once told me that back during Soviet times, people read Pravda not for the news,
    but to find out what the powers that be considered news. I think the same of our “Pravda on the Hudson”.

  36. Babak Makkinejad says:

    May be, but there is no certainty.

  37. Buzz Meeks says:

    Thank you for the letter. Called Schumer and Gillibrand. Wonder if their lackeys will get back to me after pointing out AIPAC’s ownership of these two sorry Fifth Columnists.

  38. robt willmann says:

    The attempt to keep the public from seeing and hearing and evaluating any of the so-called evidence that the Syrian government did a chemical weapons attack on 21 August is becoming more obvious.
    Apparently, the only documentation “to prove” the event consists of the publicly available “assessment” of 30 August, which contains no evidence, only conclusory statements,
    and a “classified summary” that is 12 pages long. So says U.S. representative Alan Grayson (Dem.-Florida) in an op-ed in the New York Times on 6 September 2013–
    Grayson claims that Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, has directed that House members cannot make notes of the “summary”, nor talk about what is in it. None of the alleged evidence of the dirty deed — a chemical weapons attack — is made available to the people’s representatives in Congress, not even in the super-secret reading room. In fact, not even the Internet videos that are available to the world are itemized so that the Representatives or the people can look at them to see what, if any, evidentiary value they have.
    We can safely guess that the “classified summary” is like the “assessment” released to the public — nothing but conclusory statements. No audio recordings of intercepted conversations or any other evidence is being produced.
    Thus, the U.S. Congress is being asked to vote to launch a war based on no evidence, because the members of Congress have not seen any of the evidence and to date the executive branch is not letting them see anything.
    Vietnam Vet, confusedponderer, and others have noted above ambiguities about Alan Grayson. He does favor Israel, but in this instance, unless he is acting as a stalking horse of sorts, he can help gather and maintain liberal House members in the “no” column against a Syrian war. All assistance is needed to stop the war resolution, because Nancy Pelosi is a sophisticated vote counter and hard-nosed vote getter in the House, where she went from being speaker to minority (Democratic) leader without missing a beat, and she is going to do all she can to help Obama and get the monstrous resolution passed.

  39. jon says:

    Thank you Col., and your colleagues for this crucial letter. I’m sure you represent the feelings of many others who lack the courage or ability to state these things publicly.
    I have been surprised at the continued lack of tangible evidence presented, or discussion of how the US has come to be so firmly convinced of Assad’s culpability. Perhaps there really is a smoking gun. But if we are to engage in an unprovoked act of war against another country, we citizens and our representatives have a right to be informed and to participate in that decision.
    It is shocking that the US seems determined to strike before the UN inspectors have completed their investigation, before other evidence might be found and analyzed. It is also shocking that our Secretary of State reaches first for military solutions, rather than diplomacy and humanitarian remedies.
    As a former soldier and district attorney, Kerry should understand the risks of open-ended military actions without clear, achievable goals; and he should also know that firmer cases and more evidence is usually needed to convict a common thief, much less for a capital crime. In surprising contrast, the Joint Chiefs of Staff seem reticent in their assignments of blame and thirst for action.
    Assad has reacted in this war with needless cruelty and wanton destruction. But I find it hard to imagine that he would use chemical weapons in his own capital city, on the eve of a previously scheduled visit by a WMD inspection team. At a site where he could provide access. Having been publicly alerted that further use of chemical weapons would bring the US into the war on the rebel side. Rebels we have already been assisting.
    This could be an opportunity to impose a cease fire, or to remove chemical weapons from Syria, or to identify who used and authorized chemical weapons use and bring them to trial. It could be the means to wind down the conflict. Instead we seem eager to to inflame and enlarge it. And that can only lead to more slaughter, more deaths of innocents, more refugees, and a more bitter and intractable problem.
    I thought Obama was going to cement his legacy as a President who had ended two wars on his own terms, and started none. Instead, he may gratuitously bring war to Lebanon, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Israel, and put new life into an Al Qaeda that has been reduced to a shadow of its former self. It is unlikely to leave the world a safer place for the US, to build our stature or produce good will.

  40. optimax says:

    I saw some hews hack mock the Pope for being against the war. Disgusting.

  41. Menshevik says:

    When I read through that piece by Ray McGovern, I recalled seeing that phrase,”“a war-changing development,” elsewhere, recently. by
    Yossef Bodansky . Compare paragraphs in Bodansky’s piece with McGovern’s. “On August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major and irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and representatives of Qatari, Turkish, and US Intelligence [“Mukhabarat Amriki”] took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors. Very senior opposition commanders who had arrived from Istanbul briefed the regional commanders of an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development” which would, in turn, lead to a US-led bombing of Syria.
    The opposition forces had to quickly prepare their forces for exploiting the US-led bombing in order to march on Damascus and topple the Bashar al-Assad Government, the senior commanders explained. The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive.
    Indeed, unprecedented weapons distribution started in all opposition camps in Hatay Province on August 21-23, 2013. In the Reyhanli area alone, opposition forces received well in excess of 400 tons of weapons, mainly anti-aircraft weaponry from shoulder-fired missiles to ammunition for light-guns and machineguns. The weapons were distributed from store-houses controlled by Qatari and Turkish Intelligence under the tight supervision of US Intelligence.” Bodansky.
    “In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.
    Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.
    At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government…” McGovern et. al. w/the others in the Steering Group, of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity .

  42. johnf says:

    Thank you for this, Colonel.

  43. confusedponderer says:

    “Even if he still supports “arming the rebels”, his opposing the planned Obama attack may help prevent the outbreak of the wider war”
    Granted, that’d be ‘good enough’.

  44. Ulenspiegel says:

    If you check the LD50 values of a nerve gas like sarin and the explosives in thermobaric devices then you have a difference of many orders of magnitude, add the small payload of the rockets suspected to be the delivering system, and a large scale killing by toxic chemical compounds in thermobaric devices becomes for me as chemist not a very useful explanation.
    To my best of knowledge, atropine does not work in case of an ethylene oxide poisening.
    The tricky part, when sarin was used, is to get hard proof a few days/weeks later, it is quite volatile and not very stable.

  45. Cosmoskitten says:

    You also need an expert on blast effects, wich are the main damage mechanism in FAEs. Primary blast injuries are nothing most doctors are familiar with.
    Blast Injuries: Biophysics, Pathophysiology and
    Management Principles
    CL Horrocks

  46. twv says:

    I just thought of a problem:
    As they ferociously kill each other over there and expecting to go to Allah and receive their 76 (or some such) virgins, won’t the virgin supply eventually run out?
    Then, what will they do?

  47. euclidcreek says:

    Reading the story linked by “D” – Is Putin Really Planning To Bomb Saudi Arabia? I did a cursory search of author Mark Ames, which has led me to question the validity of the story. Being a celebrity media star is one thing, offering sober investigation and analysis is something different.

  48. The beaver says:

    The Germans have started to change their tune -wonder WHY?
    Is it because the citizen journalists with different backgrounds are asking more pertinent questions than the corporate owned MSM or newspapers who kowtow with the western elitist governments ?

  49. r whitman says:

    I fully agree with you. I brought up the German thesis right after the incident happened and got laughed out of my discussion group. It was either the rebels did it or Assad did it.

  50. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    Perhaps, but given the accuracy of his reportage in the Georgian dust-up, and the lines he traced between rabid neo-cons and the encouragement that they gave to the President of Georgia in his asinine attempt to beard the Bear, I would be unwilling to chalk the story up to some effort at self-aggrandizement. One gets to be a recognized journalist not always through one’s long-range analytical skills, but in being in the way of receiving information hidden from public view (and the hiding being done with malice aforethought by our oh-so-trustworthy MSM), and getting it out there for the deliberation of the world. The characterization of Mr. Ames as a self-boosting “celebrity media star” treads awfully close to the ad hominem attacks used to surreptitiously undermine the content of their reportage. This is not to say that he does not make mistakes in the evaluation of his sources’ veracity, and that his reportage may not suffer as a consequence; when working with the ofttimes dodgy information sources with whom he interacts, that is only to be expected. But I would not, therefore, dismiss his reportage out of hand. Recall how he pointed out that the NYT belatedly came to the conclusion that the reportage that they had offered at the time of the Georgian conflict was flawed, and although they did not name him by name, so much as admitted that his reportage was far closer to the mark than their people in the field had produced.
    The consequences of blithely assuming that the US can act without worry of things spinning out of control in this chaotic situation could be dire, and deliberations should include thinking and reportage that do not fit into the pre-determined boxes favored by Obama and his inept national security team.
    If I remember correctly, a few years ago the Russians executed an assassination of some Islamist terrorists from Chechnya in one of the countries of the Arabian Peninsula where they had thought that they were off the radar and safe. Pretty bold, eh? So the Russians will not scruple to defend their national interests, even if it involves a hit squad in the middle of their enemies’ protectors/financiers own countries. They are playing for actual stakes when fighting a war against those who have instigated multiple terrorist incidents, and thinking that those who finance and support those brutal acts are safe from consequences might be a bit hasty, particularly when someone like Bandar goes into the Bear’s own lair, and so much as threatens the President of Russia with terrorism at the upcoming Sochi Olympic Games. That might just be foolhardy arrogance on his part, and he might find out that this is not to be tolerated, even if it does not come to bombing of Saudi Arabia itself. The Saudis might be: 1) Believing their own legend far too much; 2) Assuming their impunity from consequences because of something that Carter articulated years ago before it was discovered what a bunch or right bastards the Saudis really were. I think that few would shed tears were they to be taken down a few pegs. I know that I wouldn’t, as they seem to be clearly behind 9/11 and other terrorist acts against the US around the world. They love their Islamist salafist pals so much, why don’t they confine them to quarters back home instead of shipping them overseas to wreak havoc on other nations? Bacause the Saudi royals wouldn’t last long is the obvious answer.

  51. DC says:

    The relevant reps in Congress should be drafting the Articles of Impeachment right now. If the President goes ahead with this, it ought to be President Biden’s duty to get us out.

  52. euclidcreek says:

    Jefferson Jersonian comments re Mark Ames “This is not to say that he does not make mistakes in the evaluation of his sources’ veracity, and that his reportage may not suffer as a consequence; when working with the ofttimes dodgy information sources with whom he interacts, that is only to be expected.”
    I couldnn’t have said it better -ec

  53. JohnH says:

    An interesting read from Alastair Crooke on Russia, Syria and Saudi Arabia’s geopolitical machinations:
    Since Prince Bandar (AKA Bandar Bush) claims to control Chechen rebels, who unleashed several very grisly terrorist attacks in Russia, shouldn’t he be considered a prime suspect in the chemical weapons attack in Syria, particularly since the evidence pointing to Assad is so thin?

  54. DH says:

    “According to the Russian news outlet, the People’s Liberation Army dispatched the Jinggangshan amphibious dock landing ship and the vessel was seen passing through the Red Sea towards the Suez Canal, the waterway in Egypt that leads to the Mediterranean Sea and waters off the coast of Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
    According to the report, the ship has not been sent to engage in any aggressive actions but is merely there to “observe” the actions of Russian and US warships. However, the Jinggangshan is equipped for combat, has conventional armaments and secondary cannons, and was utilized as part of a “show of force” in maneuvers aimed at defending the South China Sea earlier this year.”
    Also, here’s a 56-second C-SPAN clip of Gen. Dempsey declining to add to Kerry’s concluding comments at the Tuesday Senate hearing:

  55. twv says:

    President Biden is exactly why Obama will never be impeached.

  56. JerseyJeffersonian says:

    One way of looking at this would be as a serious expression of concern over the course of events. No doubt it is also loaded to the gills with electronic monitoring devices. They’d better watch their asses; the last time a monitoring vessel got into their neighborhood, the Israelis shot it to hell. I of course speak of the U.S.S. Liberty, the attack on which the Israelis still have to answer for. Too bad the politicos TWICE called back American warplanes from coming to that ill-fated vessel’s aid. History would have been quite different I should imagine, had the responses to calls for aid been permitted to have been answered. An injustice still awaiting a genuine Naval Inquest. How long, O Lord?

  57. confusedponderer says:

    Right now there iirc is a German AGI off Lebanon.
    First time the German navy sent such a vessel down there, Israeli F 16 overflew the ship, dropping flares, intercepted a German helicopter and so forth.
    They just can’t help themselves I guess.

  58. Bob Jackson says:

    Er, they will be dead. Dead people seldom engage in physical activity. You may associate virginity with sex, albeit incorporeal, but they do not.

  59. confusedponderer says:

    There you are: The Whitehouse has just let it be known that the case against Assad s based on ‘Common Sense’, not ‘irrefutable evidence’.
    Reminds me of the trial in the movie Idiocracy:
    Judge Hank “The Hangman” BMW: Now prosecutor, why you think he done it?
    Prosecutor: ‘Kay. Number one your honor, just look at him. And B, we’ve got all this, like, evidence, from facebook and Youtube.
    [crowd boos]
    Prosecutor: I know! It’s common sense! And I’m all, ‘you’ve gotta be shittin’ me!’ But check this out man, judge should be like
    [bangs fist on table]
    Prosecutor: ‘guilty!’ Peace.

  60. Charlottemom says:

    Thank you Col. Your statement has been picked up by many blogs and is all over the Internet.

  61. Charles I says:

    Could you please remind us who resigned in the run up to Iraq?

  62. Charles I says:

    Again, when I read “control” & “Chechens” in the same sentence i am dubious.

  63. seydlitz89 says:

    Col Lang-
    Sir, I’ve been considering my comment in response to your latest appeal. As always I attempt to look at it from a strategic theory perspective.
    As with your other statements, this is very much an example of how a US patriot faced with recent events should act. If we as both citizens and those of us who are (former) officers cannot rely on the US Constitution as the foundation of our form of government, what can we rely on, exactly? The “good will” of our “rulers”? Their professed “morality”? The “purity” of the various interests?
    Our assumption is that the system of checks and balances is expected to not only work, but dictate the course of US action, especially in something as fundamental as the decision to wage war . . . facts are “terrible things”.
    If this is not the case, then are we back to Hobbes . . . is this their “final victory” as described in the last paragraph of Chapter XXIX of Leviathan?

  64. turcopolier says:

    I am not a former officer. I am a retired officer. pl

  65. seydlitz89 says:

    Col. Lang-
    Point taken.
    and sir, this thread flows so well into your next post . . .

  66. NancyK says:

    if we didn’t impeach Bush, we won’t impeach Obama.

Comments are closed.