How does one Verify Trust with these Characters?

John R. Houk

© September 14, 2013

Hmmm … Fox News reports that the USA and Russia have worked out an agreement format to collect Assad’s Chemical Weapon arsenal. I wonder if Obama is plugged into President Reagan’s “trust but verify”?

I have had the feeling of being a Conservative lone wolf because I favored the forcible removal of Chemical Weapons from Syria with the caveat that the USA did not do it alone. Also my thoughts included forcible removing any Chemical Weapons the Syrian Rebels may have acquired clandestinely from perhaps Saudi Arabia or even Libyan Chemical Weapon stores clandestinely sent via U.S. involvement.

It is my personal feeling to not trust Obama (and his Dem Administration), Putin and Iranian client Bashar al-Assad. So I have doubts the U.S./Russia accord is worth the paper it is spelled upon:

Framework for elimination of Syrian chemical weapons

The U.S. and Russia have agreed to work together on a new, binding U.N. Security Council resolution that would ensure verification of the agreement to secure and destroy Syria's chemical weapons stocks and remove its capability to produce such weapons.

SEPTEMBER 14, 2013

FRAMEWORK FOR ELIMINATION OF SYRIAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Taking into account the decision of the Syrian Arab Republic to accede to the Chemical Weapons Convention and the commitment of the Syrian authorities to provisionally apply the Convention prior to its entry into force, the United States and the Russian Federation express their joint determination to ensure the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program (CW) in the soonest and safest manner.

For this purpose, the United States and the Russian Federation have committed to prepare and submit in the next few days to the Executive Council of the OPCW a draft decision setting down special procedures for expeditious destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program and stringent verification thereof. The principles on which this decision should be based, in the view of both sides, are set forth in Annex A. The United States and the Russian Federation believe that these extraordinary procedures are necessitated by the prior use of these weapons in Syria and the volatility of the Syrian civil war.

The United States and the Russian Federation commit to work together towards prompt adoption of a UN Security Council resolution that reinforces the decision of the OPCW Executive Council. This resolution will also contain steps to ensure its verification and effective implementation and will request that the UN Secretary-General, in consultation with the OPCW, submit recommendations to the UN Security Council on an expedited basis regarding the UN’s role in eliminating the Syrian chemical weapons program.

The United States and the Russian Federation concur that this UN Security Council resolution should provide for review on a regular basis the implementation in Syria of the decision of the Executive Council of the OPCW, and in the event of non-compliance, including unauthorized transfer, or any use of chemical weapons by anyone in Syria, the UN Security Council should impose measures under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

The proposed joint US-Russian OPCW draft decision supports the application of Article VIII of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which provides for the referral of any cases of non-compliance to the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council.

In furtherance of the objective to eliminate the Syrian chemical weapons program, the United States and the Russian Federation have reached a shared assessment of the amount and type of chemical weapons involved, and are committed to the immediate international control over chemical weapons and their components in Syria. The United States and the Russian Federation expect Syria to submit, within a week, a comprehensive listing, including names, types, and quantities of its chemical weapons agents, types of munitions, and location and form of storage, production, and research and development facilities.

We further determined that the most effective control of these weapons may be achieved by removal of the largest amounts of weapons feasible, under OPCW supervision, and their destruction outside of Syria, if possible. We set ambitious goals for the removal and destruction of all categories of CW related materials and equipment with the objective of completing such removal and destruction in the first half of 2014. In addition to chemical weapons, stocks of chemical weapons agents, their precursors, specialized CW equipment, and CW munitions themselves, the elimination process must include the facilities for the development and production of these weapons. The views of both sides in this regard are set forth in Annex B.

The United States and the Russian Federation have further decided that to achieve accountability for their chemical weapons, the Syrians must provide the OPCW, the UN, and other supporting personnel with the immediate and unfettered right to inspect any and all sites in Syria. The extraordinary procedures to be proposed by the United States and the Russian Federation for adoption by the OPCW Executive Council and reinforced by a UN Security Council resolution, as described above, should include a mechanism to ensure this right.

Under this framework, personnel under both the OPCW and UN mandate should be dispatched as rapidly as possible to support control, removal, and destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons capabilities.

The United States and the Russian Federation believe that the work of the OPCW and the UN will benefit from participation of the experts of the P5 countries.

The United States and the Russian Federation strongly reiterate their position on Syria as reflected in the Final Communique of the G-8 Summit in Northern Ireland in June 2013, especially as regards chemical weapons.

The two sides intend to work closely together, and with the OPCW, the UN, all Syrian parties, and with other interested member states with relevant capabilities to arrange for the security of the monitoring and destruction mission, recognizing the primary responsibility of the Syrian Government in this regard.

The United States and the Russian Federation note that there are details in furtherance of the execution of this framework that need to be addressed on an expedited basis in the coming days and commit to complete these details, as soon as practicable, understanding that time is of the essence given the crisis in Syria.

Well it reads as an altruistic good thing to remove Chemical Weapons from Assad’s Syria. I have to wonder what will happen if Russia, Syria and probably Iran (even though the Iranian name is not mentioned in the agreement) do something to expose the agreement is a political sham.

Everyone was worried that an Obama attack on Syria would ignite into a WWIII. I wonder what ‘everyone’ will think when agreements are abrogated heinously an obligations to attack the abrogator leads to WWIII?

JRH 9/14/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

************************************

US and Russia reach agreement in Syria weapons talks

September 14, 2013

FoxNews.com

Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have reached an agreement on a framework for securing Syria's chemical weapons on the third day of intense negotiations in Geneva.

They say some elements of the deal include a timetable and how Syria must comply. And if Syria fails, they will seek a United Nations Security Council resolution, Kerry and Lavrov said.

CLICK TO READ THE RESOLUTION

At a news conference Saturday, Kerry said the pair and their teams of experts had reached "a shared assessment" of the existing stockpile and that Syria must destroy all of its weapons.

Kerry said, "we have committed to a standard that says, verify and verify." The negotiations between the United States and Russia on securing Syria's chemical weapons also are considered key to a resumption of peace talks to end the 2 1/2-year Syrian civil war.

A spokesman for the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said after the announcement: "The secretary-general looks forward to learning more of this framework agreement and pledges the support of the United Nations in its implementation. The Secretary-General expresses his fervent hope that the agreement will, first, prevent any future use of chemical weapons in Syria and, second, help pave the path for a political solution to stop the appalling suffering inflicted on the Syrian people."

The secretary-general said Friday that he expected "an overwhelming report" that chemical weapons were indeed used on the outskirts of Damascus on Aug. 21. President Obama called for a limited military strike against Bashar Assad's forces in response, then deferred seeking congressional approval to consider the Russian proposal.

Senior U.S. officials in Washington have said they do not expect the U.N. resolution will ultimately include the threat of military force, considered how Russia has repeatedly blocked such language at the U.N.

Meanwhile, sensing perhaps that the threat of a U.S. strike is no longer imminent, Assad is publicly trying to strengthen his hand. In an interview with Russian television, he not only demanded the U.S. drop the threat of military action -- he also said the Obama administration must stop arming the opposition.

"When we see that the U.S. genuinely stands for stability in our region, stops threatening us with military intervention and stops supplying terrorists with weapons, then we will consider it possible to finalize all necessary procedures and they will become legitimate and acceptable for Syria," Assad said, according to the translation by Russia's RIA Novosti. "Terrorists" is the term Assad often applies to members of the Syrian opposition.

The Obama administration decided months ago to start arming the Syrian opposition, after prior evidence of chemical weapons use. Media reports this week said the CIA, after a significant delay, has started to deliver small arms to the rebels.

Assad made one other request that might be difficult to satisfy. He said that all countries in the area must honor anti-chemical weapons agreements, "and the first country to do so is Israel because it possesses nuclear, chemical and biological weapons -- all types of weapons of mass destruction."

Israel signed the Chemical Weapons Convention 20 years ago, but did not end up ratifying it. The Assad government now claims effectively to be a party to that weapons agreement. But Syrian government officials say they need a month to submit data on their stockpiles. Kerry objected to that time frame on Thursday, suggesting that was too long.

On Friday, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, made a demand of his own, writing a letter to Kerry saying that bioweapons should also be included in the disarmament talks with Syria.

"I remain highly skeptical of Russia's true intentions, but I believe omitting Assad's bioweapons from any agreement would represent a gaping hole in the plan and would not adequately protect U.S. national security interests," he said.

Others in Washington warned that Assad and Russia's Vladimir Putin are turning the tables on the U.S. "They're just kind of playing with us," Rep. Buck McKeon, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, told Fox News on Friday.

Kerry, on Thursday, stressed that the negotiations are not a "game," and that the U.S. must keep the threat of military action on the table in order to keep the pressure on Assad. The military build-up continues, as Russia reportedly dispatched several ships to the eastern Mediterranean, while the U.S. keeps its ships in position in the region.

Kerry planned to travel to Jerusalem Sunday to discuss the situation in Syria with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He will then go to Paris to see French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius and British Foreign Secretary William Hague on Monday about the Syrian war. In Paris, he will meet separately with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

___________________________

How does one Verify Trust with these Characters?

John R. Houk

© September 14, 2013

__________________________

US and Russia reach agreement in Syria weapons talks

©2013 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.

[SlantRight Editor: Fox News is one of those places that does not appreciate reposting or cross-posting of their news stories.]

JAMES BUCHANAN'S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling

Intro to ‘JAMES BUCHANAN'S NEW CELLMATE’

Intro by John R. Houk

Posted September 9, 2013

Who is James Buchanan? Buchanan was the 15^th President of the USA elected as a Democrat (You know, the same political party as Barack Hussein Obama). Buchanan’s term of Office was from 1857 to January 11, 1861. Even though Buchanan was from Pennsylvania he supported the Slave States’ position on slavery. Buchanan mouthed his support of the U.S. Constitution and the Union of the United States of America; however as President he took no action to preserve America’s Union. Controversies of if a new State should be admitted as slave or free knocked loggerheads together politically. After Abraham Lincoln was elected as a Republican President in 1860, Southern State after Southern State seceded from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America to preserve a slave economic culture in the South.

You have to understand Buchanan’s ineptitude to comprehend the title of John Bert’s essay castigating President Barack Hussein Obama Foreign Policy and specifically Obama’s desire to engage Syria militarily.

BTW – I believe I am at least one of the reasons that John Bert reposted this essay. You can tell this might be about a week or so dated; nevertheless the thoughts are still valid. I might point out I don’t completely agree with John Bert on the issue if engaging Bashar al-Assad is not to our National Interest. I believe it is to the USA’s interest (See Also HERE) but NOT the Obama is trying to convince people to engage Assad. The lone wolf path will make things worse before it is better.

JRH 9/9/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*******************************

I am re-posting this by requestJAMES BUCHANAN'S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling)

By John Bert

Reposted September 9, 2013 2:27 pm

John Bert Facebook Post

I am re-posting this by request

JAMES BUCHANAN'S NEW CELLMATE (Or the Price we pay for electing a Mental Weakling)

Well...Folks GET READY…Obama has JUST CHECKMATED the Congress with the Syria issue. I am CERTAIN he did not make these decisions on his own…someone with an actual working brain made these calculations...not Obama.

Here is where we are:

1.) At this point there is NO Tactical advantage (or otherwise) for the type of military strike that the imbecile in chief, Obama, has been broadcasting to the enemy that we would be making.

2.) It is most assuredly NOT in our "National Interest" or in the "Security Interests" to proceed with limited military action of the sort the "president" has proposed. There is No pressing nor imminent danger. These horrible poison gas weapons are being used in theater only.

3.) Many months back Obama's teleprompter (we have to blame it on anyone BUT him, right?) caused Obama to shoot off his mouth about "red lines". The "red line" has been repeatedly crossed. Now, trapped by his own mouth, he had to put up or shut up. Shutting up makes him (and the country by default) look WEAK, which is no shock to anyone who has observed HIM for more than 5 minutes, as the Russians and Iranians surely have.

4.) So now, feeling the heat (and MOST importantly watching his poll numbers plummet) he had to try to find a "way out". Now he (or actually one of his handlers) has done so. By "seeking the authority of congress" he has effectively REVERSED the tables. Now the BLAME will fall on Congress for whatever mess comes out of Obama's desperate need to save face for his earlier case of diarrhea of the mouth about "red lines". Maybe we should call this approaching debacle the "Vanity War"?

Here is what WILL HAPPEN NOW... The very people that you have heard repeatedly saying taking military action against Syria was a BAD IDEA with no goal and no plan and worse, it could cause the entire region to go up in flames, these very SAME PEOPLE will now (many of them) FLIP and say the Congress MUST authorize the President to do something that an hour ago they were vehemently AGAINST. Yep…you read that right. The reason will be that we MUST authorize the President to make an asinine mistake, because if we do not Iran and everyone in the world will see the USA as weak and not living up to our word (Well…not our word…but the imbecile's). In other words by Obama seeking congressional authority he has abdicated his leadership and authority to act and will have it BOTH WAYS...

a.) If Congress denies him the authority he will point the finger at CONGRESS.

b.) If Congress grants him the authority whatever happens when he does launch his military action against Syria, now THEY--CONGRESS will stand right with him in assuming the blame for the consequences of military action with NO clear objective and no real benefit to the USA.

THIS IS PURE GENIUS!! Either way Congress is holding the bag!!

Just when you thought this Amateur could not screw things up worse he pulls a rabbit out of his hat and promptly drops it in the lap of Congress.

The price to pay for this one move will ripple forward in time with ramifications that are hard to fathom on sooo many fronts.

If it could not get worse...it will…Obama is getting ready to fly to RUSSIA for the G20 summit. This will be a circus. Do you remember the videos of Obama walking along a line of dignitaries in Russia and NO ONE SHAKING HIS HAND...Obama sticks his hand out and NO ONE takes it…reason?? Russians are proud people and would rather be shot dead than be seen with a WEAKLING and COWARD. They KNOW who and what Obama is and they will not shake the hand of a coward...it is as simple as that. So watch as the White House staff does their best to shepherd Obama clear of any opportunities for another round of videos of folks refusing to shake his hand.

The dire foreign policy issues will multiply from this decision. Israel now knows (if they had not before they SURE DO NOW) that they are on their own. Iran now knows beyond any illusions that Obama's word is worthless…utterly. Russia already knew.

Remember Obama did NOT seek congressional approval for Libya did he? NO. It is being done here for Obama's VANITY reasons, NOT for the benefit of the USA. It is a Parlor Trick to pull HIS ass out of the fire and stick Congress in his place. He knows historians will look on this as abdication of authority and he is desperate to find a scapegoat...he now has, IF the Congress is stupid enough to fall for this ploy.

This man is a travesty beyond comprehension. This little stunt will be paid for and I fear the price in American lives will be STEEP.

As a side note Obama has made a laughingstock out of his brand New Secretary of State. Kerry has gone out on a limb trying to assemble "partners" making a vocal and impassioned plea for military action NOW, while Obama just sawed off the limb Kerry was clinging to. Want to bet THAT picture will quickly emerge in the Political Cartoons?? I wish I could draw!

Brilliant, right? Destroy the country's credibility. Weaken foreign policy. Throw your Sec of State under the bus....and on and on...trust me this will NOT be the last act. I could write a BOOK on what MIGHT happen from here....none of it will be good. This idiot just sealed his fate historically as probably the most inept President. Move over James Buchanan you have a new cellmate.

Postscript: I have already heard Ambassador Bolton and Charles Krauthammer, two men that have repeatedly said the Syria military intervention is a horrible idea, now start sounding like Obama's cheerleader for authority to act based upon the premise I recite above...geez...it did not take long.

Friends and Countrymen IF we are to stop this madness we NEED to let our Senators and Congressmen KNOW that voting for military intervention of the type Obama has proposed in Syria is STILL a HORRIBLE IDEA, and does NOT serve any security interest of this Country, only now, if they grant him the authority, THEY will join him in the history books as the Village Idiots who got out foxed by an Rank Imbecile.

You have my permission to post this as you see fit.

___________________________

© John Bert

Edited by John R. Houk

A Vital U.S. Interest?

Intro to: A Vital U.S. Interest?

My Brief Lone Wolf Opinion

Intro by John R. Houk

Posted 9/7/13

Justin Smith believes there is no benefit to American National Interests if President Barack Hussein Obama punishes Bashar al-Assad for the use of Chemical Weapons against Syria.

I know I am beginning to sound like a lone wolf among my fellow Conservatives, but I do think it is to the National Interests of the USA to remove Assad. And yes, I do realize Assad’s removal could lead to a Sunni version of Iran’s Shi’ite theocracy. That is exactly why I believe Assad’s removal is to America’s National Interests. Assad’s removal throws a monkey into Iranian hegemonic plans for the Middle East. If a Sunni regime stands between the Radical Islamic Shias of Iran and the Radical Islamic Shias of Hezbollah residing in Lebanon, the situation then highlights the violent divide between Sunnis and Shias. Sunni-Wahhabi support of Syrian rebels by Saudi Arabia is an illustration of Sunnis trying to prevent the power of emerging Nuclear WMD Iran from being a dominating Middle Eastern hegemon hating Israel. Keeping the divide between Sunnis and Shias is to Israel’s National Interests and thus to U.S. National Interests.  I realize that is increasingly my lone Conservative opinion, but there you go.

JRH 9/7/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

****************************

A Vital U.S. Interest?

By Justin O. Smith

Sent: 9/2/2013 9:43 PM

The President of the United States has become an increasingly powerful branch of government over the past century, simply because Congress has not successfully checked the President whenever a power overreach occurred. So now, more from fear of being mocked than dismay over 1429 dead, including 400 children, Obama has placed himself in a politically precarious position and the U.S. in a dangerous military venture, over his "red line" comment and the use of weapons of mass destruction. He is poised to intervene in Syria through cruise missile strikes, with or without Congressional approval, since he has not let that stop him in the past in foreign or domestic policy.

The War Powers Act (WPA) is very clear on this matter. A U.S. President can only act in his capacity as Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and engage an enemy of our nation, when an attack has already occurred or is imminent against the U.S. or one of our allies or when a vital U.S. interest is under a heavy threat.

President Bill Clinton acted outside the WPA when he involved the U.S. in the Serbian conflict; when President Ronald Reagan sent the U.S. Marines to Grenada, he did so to protect U.S. citizens attending medical school on the island from a Cuban invasion force.

Obama is essentially damned if he commits to this limited surgical strike and damned if he doesn't. Two weeks ago, it wasn't a question of if, but a question of when President Obama was going to order a strike on Syria on his own authority; and now, after speaking with Denis McDonough, White House Chief of Staff, Obama seems quite reticent to act on his own and without Congressional approval, which led Syria's state-run newspaper, Al Thawra, to call this "the start of the historic American retreat."

I must ask once again, "What vital interest of the U.S. is at stake in Syria, and what risk of imminent attack exists?"

The answer for the moment is that the U.S. has never had any vital interests concerning Syria, except to closely scrutinize Syria as Iran's ally and to keep Syria and Iran from going nuclear; however, Obama's loose-lipped "red line" comment is driving him towards proceeding with an attack which will give Iran its excuse for a retaliatory attack on Israel, according to a senior mullah in Iran, not that Obama is too worried about Israel. So, whether he attacks or not, he is seen for the indecisive, weak, and timid U.S. President, who is guided by his own arrogant self-image and false pride, rather than any clear and concise foreign policy.

More asinine reasoning is readily viewed in statements from Obama, Senator John McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham, who have continually spoken of "regime change" and Assad's ouster, although Obama now states that this is not the mission. All three were wrong in Libya...wrong in Egypt...and now that they are on the record they are wrong in stating that any U.S. military intervention should "deter and degrade" Assad's government's ability to launch chemical weapons and level the field for the "rebels." And, to what end? So Al Qaeda and Ansar al-Nusra can more easily take Syria for their own and run terrorist operations out of Syria for the rest of the century?

It should trouble us all to see hundreds and thousands of little innocent Syrian children suffering, and trouble me greatly it does. But once more, this crisis of humanity gives me pause and offers up more questions than answers.

Where were those who advocate "intervention for human rights" crises, such as Susan Rice, NSA advisor and ex-Ambassador to the U.N., Samantha Power, Obama advisor and current U.N. Ambassador and ex-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton...or for that matter Secretary of State John Kerry, when the freedom fighters of Tiananmen Square in China, the Greens of Iran or the people of Rwanda and the Congo were crying out for their assistance? Susan Rice, for one, was busy lining her pockets through her close business relationship with Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, which extended through her time at Intellibridge and her position as the State Department's top African affairs expert, during the Clinton administration. John Kerry was probably cruising Boston Harbor on his yacht.

The harsh reality exists that the U.S. cannot be the world's policeman. Simply put, we help when and where we can, without doing any harm. As much as we all wish to save all the hurt and suffering people of the world, the enormity of the task is simply too much for any one nation; but this has not stopped Prince Saud al-Faisal from begging the international community to "stop Assad's aggression" against his people, while at the same time, the Arab League, Great Britain and the U.N., all three, have given Obama a vote of no confidence and refused to join him in any coalition for intervening in Syria, because Obama is not trusted as a world leader.

It mat bear reminding that more than humanitarian aid is at the forefront of Prince Faisal's mind. This is the same family who teach the youth of Saudi Arabia that "jihad-is-the-road-to-paradise", and because they viewed jihad, holy war, as a proper response through the Q'uran to the U.S. led invasion of Iraq, they left their borders open with Iraq. The Faisal family tacitly supported the flow of non-Iraqi islamofascist insurgents into Iraq, in much the same manner that they now support the "rebels"/islamofascists in Syria!

The best of intentions all too often go awry, and no matter that Obama calls this a "limited surgical strike" or McCain's refrain of "no boots on the ground" echoes through the halls of Congress, to date, the military proposal has not been properly limited in its scope or duration; many Democrats and Republicans alike already stand in opposition to this intervention with great logic: Senator Christopher Murphy (D) asks, "Will a U.S. attack make the situation better for the Syrian people or worse?" And, on 'Meet the Press' this past Sunday, Senator Rand Paul seemed to answer that very question, as he stated, "If we start a bombing campaign in Syria that expands the misery. Assad's not an ally, but I'm not convinced that anyone on the rebel side will be an American ally."

Nearly two million refugees have fled Syria. Little elementary school children have witnessed unspeakable horrors and the deaths of numerous friends and family members, and the head of the United Nations Human Rights Commission says that "we are looking at a lost generation of children traumatized by this war." And there are no good answers to far too many questions, as the world rings its hands. Is this America's problem? No, I tend to view this more as the entire Middle East's problem due to its cultural aberrations; under no circumstance should the U.S. further involve itself in this mess, under a Commander-In-Chief I certainly could never have served. As harsh and unfeeling as this may sound, the world has all too often stood on the sidelines and allowed much worse to take place; if the attack on our consulate at Benghazi did not warrant a U.S. military response, how can Obama justify an intervention in Syria? ...He can't!

By Justin O Smith

____________________

© Justin O. Smith

Editor-Intro John R. Houk

Why Does Negotiate-Peace-Obama Want Assad Out?

John R. Houk

© September 5, 2013

[Editor: I tried to post this yesterday but was distracted by family matters. When you see words like “today” or “yesterday” keep in mind the post was meant for 9/4/13]

Has anyone wondered why President Barack Hussein Obama who in part won his 2008 election due to a combined Bush Derangement Syndrome and a promise of ending the Middle Eastern wars the USA has been fighting? I mean BHO has been the Messiah of Leftists that desire peace at any cost even if it destroys American Exceptionalism. Obama has been hot to attack Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian regime accused of launching Chemical Weapons against Syrian civilians more aligned to the Syrian Rebels than to Assad’s Shia-Alawite military dictatorship.

Frankly I have been leaning toward a U.S. attack against Assad even if it means Sunni al Qaeda-loving rebels used the attack to reassert a military advantage and remove Assad. Why? Because removing Assad throws a monkey wrench into the Iranian agenda to be the Middle East’s primary military hegemon. As a Middle Eastern hegemon Iran undoubtedly will make a play to destroy Israel. Israel’s destruction would rally even the Islam’s Sunni majority to be favorable to Iran’s Shia-Twelver Islamic minority.

Such Iranian hegemony would be unacceptable to the global seat of Radical Islam which is financed by Saudi oil multibillions of dollars. The royal family of the House of Saud seems to be unofficially divided between worldly-Western-minded billionaires and Radical Islamic Wahhabi loyalists. Wahhabism exists in Saudi Arabia because the House of Saud manages politics and Wahhabist Clerics run Saudi religious enforcement (The roots of Saud-Wahhabi alliance can be read HERE) which includes the operation of Islam’s holiest sites in Mecca and Medina. It is apparent to me the Wahhabists are gaining more and more influence within the Saud royal family over the last quarter century because of the international Saudi money being spent to spread Radical Islam throughout the Western world. For example a vast majority of Mosques built in the USA has NOT happened as a result of local Muslim money from so-called Moderate Muslims. That money has been supplied via the Saudi money coffers.

The Wahhabi Movement of Saudi Arabia over the years seems to have hooked up with Muslim Brotherhood networks in the West. A lot of that Saudi money has found its way through Muslim Brotherhood linked organizations masking as Moderate Muslims yet in reality are MB fronts for the MB agenda to spread stealth jihad in America. The Egyptian military crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood home in Egypt has placed a bit of a dent in the MB international agenda because their Radical Islamic focus now is to remain viable in Egypt.

So again! Why is anti-war Obama rattling swords to attack Assad’s regime? There is no doubt that Chemical Weapons were deployed on Syrian civilians. The doubt is was Assad responsible for the Chem Weapon attack or were the Syrian Rebels responsible?

I listened to Obama’s explanation of who the Chem Weapon culprits are in a Swedish news conference today. Obama’s reasoning runs something like this (off the top of my head): Everyone knows Assad’s regime has Chemical Weapons. Everyone knows that Assad’s regime has the military capability to launch those Chemical Weapons. Everyone knows that the Syrian Rebels does not have the military capability to launch a Chemical Weapon attack even if they had the Chem WMD. And everyone knows the civilians attacked with Chemical Weapons were Free Syrian Army sympathizers, so are the Syrian Rebels so vicious to attack their own and blame Assad?

I have to tell ya, this is good reasoning. At this point what is important to me is that Chemical Weapons were used in an act of war. It is irrelevant who used them. The fact they were used should broach an international outcry to step into the Syrian Civil War and remove those Chemical Weapons no matter who used them. In such a measure admittedly that would turn that war toward the Radical Muslim rebels. And as I wrote earlier a rebel victory – at least momentarily – would throw a monkey wrench into the Iranian hegemonic agenda.

Then I discovered an interesting thing that has not been widely disseminated by the American MSM or the mainstream conservative network known as Fox News. Or at least I have not read or listened to any news about this news story that should be widely disseminated. What is this news information I discovered? Are you saying in your mind’s eye, “Come on, out with it John?”

Ok – Ok, I got you. Here it is. There is a news story from Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak who has written that Saudi Arabia had somehow funneled Chemical Weapons to the Syrian Rebels. The problem though is that no one taught the Rebels how to handle or use the Chemical Weapons. While in a Damascus suburb called Ghouta the Syrian Rebels unwittingly mishandled the Chemical Weapons and BOOM – Ghouta civilians were doused with Chemical Weapons. I found the story at a Conspiracy Theory blog called Zero Hedge. And Zero Hedge picked up the information from the Voice of Russia.

Admittedly the story might be Putin propaganda because Russia, China and Iran have formed a triumvirate of support for Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government. BUT if there was even a minuscule amount of truth to the story the information would go a long way to explain peace-at-any-cost Obama wanting to engage Assad’s regime in war.

Let me say up front I do not believe Obama is a Muslim any more than I believed his assertion of being a Christian while attending Jeremiah Wright’s Marxist Black Liberation Theology oriented Church in Chicago. Yet old Barry’s upbringing included schooling in a must-be-a Muslim school in Indonesia while his Marxist mommy (very unflattering S. A. Dunham bio) was married to Barry’s Muslim step-dad. This is not to mention that Barry’s Marxist daddy (OR was daddy really Frank Marshall Davis?) was also brought up a Muslim in Kenya. So I am thinking there is a lot of sympathy from President Obama toward Islam – particularly Sunni Islam which comprises around 90% of all Islam. Notably on Obama’s Middle East version of his apology tour included a speech at Cairo in which the Muslim Brotherhood was in attendance and in a stop at a G20 Conference Obama exerted Muslim respect to the King of Saudi Arabia by bowing down to him in front of the cameras that showed this symbolism to primarily Christian America. Also I could mention the scores of Radical Muslims (even if some claimed Moderate) that visited Barry Soetoro – er I mean – President Barrack Hussein Obama at the White House.

Obama’s sympathies are with Sunni Islam. Wahhabi Clerics have declared Shiites as kafir (infidels or unbelievers of Islam) worthy of death. That would obviously include the Shia-Twelvers of Iran and Shia-Aliwites of Syria.

As I was writing this I haphazardly heard a Fox News report in which German Intelligence claims they intercepted a message between the Bashar regime and Hezbollah (or was it Iran to Hezbollah?) in which confirmation was heard that the Bashar military did commit the Chemical Weapon attack. Secretary of State John Kerry before a Senate Committee said that there was proof contradicting Senator Rand Paul’s assertion there is no proof of who used Chem Weapons in Syria. I was left with the impression the proof was Classified and could be revealed in Closed Chambers but not during a public forum.

So here I am after reading report that the Syrian Rebels bungled Chemical Weapon handling resulting in the deaths of hundreds of their supporters. I read the report on a Conspiracy Theory website which is always tainted with the specter of believability YET Zero Hedge quotes a much respected AP journalist in Dale Gavlak. BUT Dale Gavlak is quoted from a Russian source which I am fairly certain jumps when Vladimir Putin barks.

I suspect Obama will attack Assad. I suspect WWIII will spark. The unknown is Israel. Some suspect Obama’s agenda is Israel’s destruction. I’m not sure if it will work out that way with this WWIII spark. Perhaps Obama is just a charismatic speaking Leftist that is a Foreign Policy imbecile. Perhaps where the cards fall has multiple possibilities and God Almighty will direct how those cards fall according to His grand plan. Yup, I am a Right Wing Christian Believer in the Word of God that believes there is a Divine plan.

JRH 9/5/13

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*****************************

Guest Post: Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Submitted by Tyler Durden

09/01/2013 14:04 -0400

Submitted by Michael Snyder via The Economic Collapse blog

Zero Hedge

Someone wants to get the United States into a war with Syria very, very badly.  Cui bono is an old Latin phrase that is still commonly used, and it roughly means "to whose benefit?"  The key to figuring out who is really behind the push for war is to look at who will benefit from that war.  If a full-blown war erupts between the United States and Syria, it will not be good for the United States, it will not be good for Israel, it will not be good for Syria, it will not be good for Iran and it will not be good for Hezbollah.  The party that stands to benefit the most is Saudi Arabia, and they won't even be doing any of the fighting.

They have been pouring billions of dollars into the conflict in Syria, but so far they have not been successful in their attempts to overthrow the Assad regime.  Now the Saudis are trying to play their trump card - the U.S. military.  If the Saudis are successful, they will get to pit the two greatest long-term strategic enemies of Sunni Islam against each other - the U.S. and Israel on one side and Shia Islam on the other.  In such a scenario, the more damage that both sides do to each other the happier the Sunnis will be.

There would be other winners from a U.S. war with Syria as well.  For example, it is well-known that Qatar wants to run a natural gas pipeline out of the Persian Gulf, through Syria and into Europe.  That is why Qatar has also been pouring billions of dollars into the civil war in Syria.

So if it is really Saudi Arabia and Qatar that want to overthrow the Assad regime, why does the United States have to do the fighting?

Someone should ask Barack Obama why it is necessary for the U.S. military to do the dirty work of his Sunni Muslim friends.

Obama is promising that the upcoming attack will only be a "limited military strike" and that we will not be getting into a full-blown war with Syria.

The only way that will work is if Syria, Hezbollah and Iran all sit on their hands and do nothing to respond to the upcoming U.S. attack.

Could that happen?

Maybe.

Let's hope so.

But if there is a response, and a U.S. naval vessel gets hit, or American blood is spilled, or rockets start raining down on Tel Aviv, the U.S. will then be engaged in a full-blown war.

That is about the last thing that we need right now.

The vast majority of Americans do not want to get embroiled in another war in the Middle East, and even a lot of top military officials are expressing "serious reservations" about attacking Syria according to the Washington Post...

The Obama administration’s plan to launch a military strike against Syria is being received with serious reservations by many in the U.S. military, which is coping with the scars of two lengthy wars and a rapidly contracting budget, according to current and former officers.

Having assumed for months that the United States was unlikely to intervene militarily in Syria, the Defense Department has been thrust onto a war footing that has made many in the armed services uneasy, according to interviews with more than a dozen military officers ranging from captains to a four-star general.

For the United States, there really is no good outcome in Syria.

If we attack and Assad stays in power, that is a bad outcome for the United States.

If we help overthrow the Assad regime, the rebels take control.  But they would be even worse than Assad.  They have pledged loyalty to al-Qaeda, and they are rabidly anti-American, rabidly anti-Israel and rabidly anti-western.

So why in the world should the United States get involved?

This war would not be good for Israel either.  I have seen a number of supposedly pro-Israel websites out there getting very excited about the prospect of war with Syria, but that is a huge mistake.

Syria has already threatened to attack Israeli cities if the U.S. attacks Syria.  If Syrian missiles start landing in the heart of Tel Aviv, Israel will respond.

And if any of those missiles have unconventional warheads, Israel will respond by absolutely destroying Damascus.

And of course a missile exchange between Syria and Israel will almost certainly draw Hezbollah into the conflict.  And right now Hezbollah has 70,000 rockets aimed at Israel.

If Hezbollah starts launching those rockets, thousands upon thousands of innocent Jewish citizens will be killed.

So all of those "pro-Israel" websites out there that are getting excited about war with Syria should think twice.  If you really are "pro-Israel", you should not want this war.  It would not be good for Israel.

If you want to stand with Israel, then stand for peace.  This war would not achieve any positive outcomes for Israel.  Even if Assad is overthrown, the rebel government that would replace him would be even more anti-Israel than Assad was.

War is hell.  Ask anyone that has been in the middle of one.  Why would anyone want to see American blood spilled, Israeli blood spilled or Syrian blood spilled?

If the Saudis want this war so badly, they should go and fight it.  Everyone knows that the Saudis have been bankrolling the rebels.  At this point, even CNN is openly admitting this...

It is an open secret that Saudi Arabia is using Jordan to smuggle weapons into Syria for the rebels. Jordan says it is doing all it can to prevent that and does not want to inflame the situation in Syria.

And Assad certainly knows who is behind the civil war in his country.  The following is an excerpt from a recent interview with Assad...

Of course it is well known that countries, such as Saudi Arabia, who hold the purse strings can shape and manipulate them to suit their own interests.

Ideologically, these countries mobilize them through direct or indirect means as extremist tools. If they declare that Muslims must pursue Jihad in Syria, thousands of fighters will respond.

Financially, those who finance and arm such groups can instruct them to carry out acts of terrorism and spread anarchy. The influence over them is synergized when a country such as Saudi Arabia directs them through both the Wahhabi ideology and their financial means.

And shortly after the British Parliament voted against military intervention in Syria, Saudi Arabia raised their level of "defense readiness" from "five" to "two" in a clear sign that they fully expect a war to happen...

Saudi Arabia, a supporter of rebels fighting to topple President Bashar al-Assad, has raised its level of military alertness in anticipation of a possible Western strike in Syria, sources familiar with the matter said on Friday.

The United States has been calling for punitive action against Assad's government for a suspected poison gas attack on a Damascus suburb on August 21 that killed hundreds of people.

Saudi Arabia's defense readiness has been raised to "two" from "five", a Saudi military source who declined to be named told Reuters. "One" is the highest level of alert.

And guess who has been supplying the rebels in Syria with chemical weapons?

According to Associated Press correspondent Dale Gavlak, it has been the Saudis...

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

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

And this is someone that isn't just fresh out of journalism school.  As Paul Joseph Watson noted, "Dale Gavlak’s credibility is very impressive. He has been a Middle East correspondent for the Associated Press for two decades and has also worked for National Public Radio (NPR) and written articles for BBC News."

The Voice of Russia has also been reporting on Gavlak's bombshell findings...

The rebels noted it was a result of an accident caused by rebels mishandling chemical weapons provided to them.

“My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim, the father of a rebel fighting to unseat Assad, who lives in Ghouta.

As Gavlak reports, Abdel-Moneim said his son and 12 other rebels died in a weapons storage tunnel. The father stated the weapons were provided to rebel forces by a Saudi militant, known as Abu Ayesha, describing them as having a “tube-like structure” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.”

“They didn’t tell us what these arms were or how to use them,” complained a female fighter named ‘K’. “We didn’t know they were chemical weapons. We never imagined they were chemical weapons.”

“When Saudi Prince Bandar gives such weapons to people, he must give them to those who know how to handle and use them,” she warned. She, like other Syrians, do not want to use their full names for fear of retribution.

Gavlak also refers to an article in the UK’s Daily Telegraph about secret Russian-Saudi talks stating that Prince Bandar threatened Russian President Vladimir Putin with terror attacks at next year’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if Russia doesn’t agree to change its stance on Syria.

“Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord,” the article stated.

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

Yes, the Saudis were so desperate to get the Russians to stand down and allow an attack on Syria that they actually threatened them.  Zero Hedge published some additional details on the meeting between Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan and Russian President Vladimir Putin...

Bandar told Putin, “There are many common values and goals that bring us together, most notably the fight against terrorism and extremism all over the world. Russia, the US, the EU and the Saudis agree on promoting and consolidating international peace and security. The terrorist threat is growing in light of the phenomena spawned by the Arab Spring. We have lost some regimes. And what we got in return were terrorist experiences, as evidenced by the experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and the extremist groups in Libya. ... As an example, I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics in the city of Sochi on the Black Sea next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us, and they will not move in the Syrian territory’s direction without coordinating with us. These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role or influence in Syria’s political future.”

It is good of the Saudis to admit they control a terrorist organization that "threatens the security" of the Sochi 2014 Olympic games, and that house of Saud uses "in the face of the Syrian regime." Perhaps the next time there is a bombing in Boston by some Chechen-related terrorists, someone can inquire Saudi Arabia what, if anything, they knew about that.

But the piece de resistance is what happened at the end of the dialogue between the two leaders. It was, in not so many words, a threat by Saudi Arabia aimed squarely at Russia:

As soon as Putin finished his speech, Prince Bandar warned that in light of the course of the talks, things were likely to intensify, especially in the Syrian arena, although he appreciated the Russians’ understanding of Saudi Arabia’s position on Egypt and their readiness to support the Egyptian army despite their fears for Egypt's future.

The head of the Saudi intelligence services said that the dispute over the approach to the Syrian issue leads to the conclusion that “there is no escape from the military option, because it is the only currently available choice given that the political settlement ended in stalemate. We believe that the Geneva II Conference will be very difficult in light of this raging situation.”

At the end of the meeting, the Russian and Saudi sides agreed to continue talks, provided that the current meeting remained under wraps. This was before one of the two sides leaked it via the Russian press.

Are you starting to get the picture?

The Saudis are absolutely determined to make this war happen, and they expect us to do the fighting.

And Barack Obama plans to go ahead and attack Syria without the support of the American people or the approval of Congress.

According to a new NBC News poll that was just released, nearly 80 percent of all Americans want Congress to approve a strike on Syria before it happens.

And according to Politico, more than 150 members of Congress have already signed letters demanding that Obama get approval from them before attacking Syria...

Already Thursday, more than 150 members of Congress have signaled their opposition to airstrikes on Syria without a congressional vote. House members circulated two separate letters circulated that were sent to the White House demanding a congressional role before military action takes place. One, authored by Rep. Scott Rigell (R-Va.), has more than 150 signatures from Democrats and Republicans. Another, started by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.), is signed by 53 Democrats, though many of them also signed Rigell’s letter.

However, is (sic – should be ‘it’) is clear that he is absolutely determined to attack Syria, and he is not going to let the U.S. Congress - even if they vote against it - or the American people stop him.

Let's just hope that he doesn't start World War III in the process.

_______________________

Why Does Negotiate-Peace-Obama Want Assad Out?

John R. Houk

© September 4, 2013

______________________

Guest Post: Who Benefits From A War Between The United States And Syria?

Copyright ©2009-2013 ZeroHedge.com/ABC Media, LTD; All Rights Reserved. Zero Hedge is intended for Mature Audiences.

the zero hedge manifesto