The ruling class is well aware of the deep opposition to war among the American people. According to a Washington Post /ABC News poll published yesterday, 59 percent oppose any military strikes, compared to only 36 percent who support them. And this lopsided opposition is in response to a question that presupposes the US government’s central propaganda claim, that the Syrian government used chemical weapons to attack civilians, and that the planned strikes are a response to this attack.
There is not a single sector of the population—broken down by age, gender, political affiliation, education, income or region of the country—that supports war. It is significant, however, that opposition to war is higher among poorer Americans than among the wealthy (63 percent opposition among those earning under $50,000, compared to 51 percent among those earning more than $100,000). Young people are more opposed than older Americans (65 percent among 18-39 year olds, compared to 55 percent among those 65 or older).
The gulf between the political establishment and the population is not limited to war. At the height of the vicious government and media campaign against Edward Snowden, polls showed overwhelming popular support for the whistleblower, who continues to reveal government criminality. A pollster noted at the time that public sentiment “goes against almost the unified view of the nation’s political establishment.” And so it is with war.
The antiwar sentiment is all the more significant in view of the fact that it follows two solid weeks of non-stop media propaganda, with the vacuous talking heads and agents of the state who function as news broadcasters eschewing any pretext of impartiality, let alone criticism. Syria is denounced as the “enemy,” government claims are presented as fact, and the long history of lies used to drag the population into war is ignored.
Any forum where genuine popular sentiment can find any expression reveals the divide that exists. Comments on generally pro-war articles and editorials in the New York Times and other major newspapers are overwhelmingly antiwar, and those most “recommended” by other readers are almost entirely so. Many comments express outrage that neither the political parties nor the media (including the Times itself) are the slightest bit interested in what the population thinks.
I like that. It needs to be paired with some points C.I. made this morning in "Message to the Media: Stop Whoring:"
If you doubt the whoring that's taking place, read Katherine Skiba's report for the Chicago Tribune -- she is reporting -- entitled "Durbin votes for Syria attack, says situation different from Iraq War." In a functioning press, reports like Skiba's would make up at least half the coverage. In a healthy press, they would make up over 70% of the coverage.
Instead, Skiba's report is a rarity and we're instead confronted with the crap of David Weigel's which keeps changing headlines (currently "The Phantom of Baghdad") when what it needs to change is the text. We don't link to Weigel so look for it yourself, it was posted at 8:06 pm last night at Slate. And you get crap like Ben Jacobs' "Iraq Hawks' Flip-Flop" (Daily Beast) and it just goes on and on. Ask yourself why Amanda Terkel pens "The Iraq Hangover: Lawmakers Who Backed War Now Skittish On Syria"? Why is the position of no to war the one that's treated as suspect?
The media has decided the narrative on Congress and Syria will be: Look at these people who supported the Iraq War and now won't support war on Syria?
That goes to how f**ked up American media is and they never grasp it. 'What's the problem,' they would insist, 'this is news.'
No, it's not, it's whoring.
News would mean if you were covering the Iraq War supporters who are opposed to attacking Syria you would also be covering the Iraq War opponents who are now supporting an attack on Syria.
But that's not what's going on. Skiba's report is a rarity.
And that's because the press narrative is: Look at these freaks who supported war on Iraq but now don't want to attack Syria.
The press is not trying to explore or inform.
They're a little more mature than Chachi lookalike Rachel Maddow, but they've accepted war as normal and as needed. Which is why in 2002 and 2003, they demonized those against the Iraq War and why they ridicule and treat as strange those Republicans who are against attacking Syria.
The default setting on the press is pro-war. It's past time that this was seriously addressed by media watchdogs.
C.I. is so right. Where is the media outcry for those who voted against Iraq but now support an attack on Syria to justify themselves? There's really not because those people are supporting war and, as C.I. pointed out, that is the default position of the press.
Here's C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot:"
US President Barack Obama wants war on Syria. It's wrong for many reasons. One that no one seems to be raising is cost. The authorization the White House wants from Congress -- passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- does not prohibit "boots on the ground." Secretary of State John Kerry had a meltdown over 'no boots on the ground' being in the authorization during the Senate committee's hearing on Tuesday. He also spoke in terms of actions additional to a 'precision strike' which is why it is a 90 day authorization that Barack's enablers have passed. It has not passed the Senate, it has not passed the House. Judging from complaints to the public e-mail account, either local anchors across the country are really stupid or they're being intentionally stupid to imply it's a done deal. All that being voted out of Committee does is send it to the Senate floor for a vote. Being voted out of Committee does not change a bill into a law. Jason Ditz's Antiwar piece that just went up may make that clearer. Opening sentence: "After yesterday’s 10-7 committee vote set the stage for a tight vote in the Senate about the Syrian War, the issue may end up entirely academic, as ABC News is the first to call it, and based on the public comments the war is headed for a defeat in the House of Representatives."
Many are noting the lack of restrictions to the authorization Barack Obama wants. (See Jason Ditz' "Senate Committee Approves Loophole-Ridden Syria War Resolution" at Antiwar.com.) Who's going to point out the blank check aspect? Congress controls the purse. The measure the White House wants and that the Senate committee passed is a blank check and isn't the US supposed to be in the midst of a fiscal crisis?
You've not only got the failed economy, you've also got sequestration. Across the board cuts.
So why is the US Congress being asked to authorize any new action without such an action having a clear and public price tag?
The US economy remains in the toilet, services are being cut (further cut) across the country and more cuts are due to come shortly and on top of this outstanding (unpaid) bill, Barack wants to toss on military actions when there is no threat to Syria?
And the White House will not return to extend the 90 day authorization. It will just plow on through if it feels the need. Meaning ten years from now someone may write a letter to the Seattle Times' editors on the money spent on the Syrian War the way Kathy Swoyer writes them now:
Today in Iraq, 10 years later, countless lives -- military and civilian-- have been and continue to be lost, hundreds of millions of our tax dollars were spent, and Shiite/Sunni violence is rearing up again. Al-Qaida terrorism is now robust.
What, exactly, have we gained?
He now wants to turn that destructive force on Syria.
The years long effort for war on Syria has already run up a large tab -- in money and resources. In resources, you have John Kerry and the State Department spending 2012 and this year attempting to persuade foreign countries into supporting war and pressuring them to cut off ties to Syria.
That has a huge cost. Might life be better for the Iraqi people if high-profile US visits to Iraq in the last two years had been about the needs of the Iraqi people and not the US government's need for war with Syria? And what was Nouri given to make him announce (briefly) that they would stop flights from Iran to Syria?
If diplomacy had been used for humanitarian reasons, then high-profile US visits would have been about wrongful imprisonments, the need to stop torturing, the need to stop shooting at Iraqis taking part in a sit-in and, at the very least, the need to provide the people with basic public services (electricity, potable water, etc.).
A lot of liars in Congress and in the press want to insist attacking Syria would be a "humanitarian action." They ignore the reality of what they're demanding. As Steve Chapman (Chicago Tribune) observes, "It may look antiseptic from Washington, but only because the Syrians have no means to respond [to an attack] in kind. But to anyone in Syria, there will be no doubt that we are waging war." Activist, author and candidate for governor in California Cindy Sheehan weighs in on these 'humanitarian concerns' at Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox:
Now, Obama and Pelosi want to kill Syrian children so their government doesn’t kill them? I don't want the Syrian government or US supported rebels to kill anyone, but I am sure that dying by a US made and launched missile is much more compassionate than any other way? Obviously the “problem” that the US has, is not that it loves children so much, but that it’s Murder, Inc and wants a global monopoly on carnage.
To me, and many others who really pay attention to needs of children, what is urgent is for the US to stop all its wars that harm families all over the world, even here. Why do you think our economy is tanking and the social safety nets are being greatly reduced or eliminated? Our overwhelming monetary and psycho investment in the military industrial complex!
FYI, Cindy's campaign site is here. If the liars in Congress and the press have are so concerned about 'humanitarian' intervention in Syria, why have they expressed no humanitarian concerns about Iraq?
KUNA reports the European Union's High Representative Catherine Ashton issued a statement condemning Tuesday's attacks in Iraq. Her statement in full [PDF format warning] can be found here:
I condemn in the strongest terms the series of car bombings that killed many civilians on Tuesday in predominantly Shia districts of Baghdad. My thoughts go out to the many innocent victims and I express my condolences to their families.
I am seriously concerned by the escalation of violence in Iraq over the past months which is fueling sectarianism and undermining the stability of the country. I call on all political, religious and community leaders to increase their efforts to end this dangerous cycle of vilence. I am confident that the Iraqi people will remain steadfast in their rejection of sectarian violence and work towards a successful transition to democracy and long term stability for the benefit of all of Iraq's citizens.
The US government has nothing to say about Tuesday's attacks which killed 87 people (Iraq Body Count tally). It rarely has anything to say about anything to do with Iraq. Yes, Sunday, they did issue the following:
Press Statement
Marie Harf
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Deputy Spokesperson, Office of the Spokesperson
Washington, DC
September 1, 2013
The
United States strongly condemns the terrible events that took place at
Camp Ashraf today, which according to various reports resulted in the
deaths of and injuries to numerous camp residents. Our condolences go
out to the families of the victims and those who were injured in today’s
violence.
We are deeply concerned about these reports and are in regular contact with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), as well as Government of Iraq officials. We support UNAMI's efforts to conduct its own assessment of the situation and call on the Government of Iraq to fully support those efforts.
We further call on Iraqi authorities to act with urgency to immediately ensure medical assistance to the wounded and to secure the camp against any further violence or harm to the residents. We underscore the responsibility of the Government of Iraq and all relevant stakeholders to ensure the safety and security of residents at both Camp Ashraf and Camp Hurriyah, and we affirm the call by UNAMI for a full and independent investigation into this terrible and tragic event. Those found to be responsible must be held fully accountable.
We are deeply concerned about these reports and are in regular contact with the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI), as well as Government of Iraq officials. We support UNAMI's efforts to conduct its own assessment of the situation and call on the Government of Iraq to fully support those efforts.
We further call on Iraqi authorities to act with urgency to immediately ensure medical assistance to the wounded and to secure the camp against any further violence or harm to the residents. We underscore the responsibility of the Government of Iraq and all relevant stakeholders to ensure the safety and security of residents at both Camp Ashraf and Camp Hurriyah, and we affirm the call by UNAMI for a full and independent investigation into this terrible and tragic event. Those found to be responsible must be held fully accountable.
But before you applaud them, that's idiotic.
All the ones arguing humanitarian grounds for Syria -- including the ridiculous US House Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz with her "as a Jew" statement -- need to ask where is the humanitarian concern for the Ashraf community?
The United States could actually put more boots on the ground in Iraq as a result of that attack. International law would allow that (some legal scholars would argue that international law compels it).
I must have missed Debs Wasserman weighing in on the attack, "as a Jew," right?
Adam Schreck (AP) reported Tuesday that the United Nations just confirmed the deaths of 52 Ashraf residents. Al Mada noted Monday that Nouri's declared he should be over the Iraqi investigation since he's commander-in-chief. And that's exactly why he shouldn't be over it. Tuesday, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a statement which included:
Reiterating his previous statement, the UN Envoy expressed his outrage at the brutal killing of the camp’s residents. Mr. Busztin took note of the statement issued by the Government of Iraq announcing it has initiated its own investigation into the tragic events and acknowledging its responsibility for the safety of the camp’s residents. “I call on the Iraqi government to ensure that a thorough, impartial and transparent investigation into this atrocious crime is conducted without delay and that the results of the investigation are made public”, he said.
Deb Wasserman may not grasp the basics so let's review slowly.
Camp Ashraf housed a group of Iranian dissidents who were welcomed to Iraq by Saddam Hussein in 1986 and he gave them Camp Ashraf and six other parcels that they could utilize. In 2003, the US invaded Iraq.The US government had the US military lead negotiations with the residents of Camp Ashraf. The US government wanted the residents to disarm and the US promised protections to the point that US actions turned the residents of Camp Ashraf into protected person under the Geneva Conventions. This is key and demands the US defend the Ashraf community in Iraq from attacks. The Bully Boy Bush administration grasped that -- they were ignorant of every other law on the books but they grasped that one. As 2008 drew to a close, the Bush administration was given assurances from the Iraqi government that they would protect the residents. Yet Nouri al-Maliki ordered the camp repeatedly attacked after Barack Obama was sworn in as US President. July 28, 2009 Nouri launched an attack (while then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was on the ground in Iraq). In a report released this summer entitled "Iraqi government must respect and protect rights of Camp Ashraf residents," Amnesty International described this assault, "Barely a month later, on 28-29 July 2009, Iraqi security forces stormed into the camp; at least nine residents were killed and many more were injured. Thirty-six residents who were detained were allegedly tortured and beaten. They were eventually released on 7 October 2009; by then they were in poor health after going on hunger strike." April 8, 2011, Nouri again ordered an assault on Camp Ashraf (then-US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was again on the ground in Iraq when the assault took place). Amnesty International described the assault this way, "Earlier this year, on 8 April, Iraqi troops took up positions within the camp using excessive, including lethal, force against residents who tried to resist them. Troops used live ammunition and by the end of the operation some 36 residents, including eight women, were dead and more than 300 others had been wounded. Following international and other protests, the Iraqi government announced that it had appointed a committee to investigate the attack and the killings; however, as on other occasions when the government has announced investigations into allegations of serious human rights violations by its forces, the authorities have yet to disclose the outcome, prompting questions whether any investigation was, in fact, carried out." Those weren't the last attacks. They were the last attacks while the residents were labeled as terrorists by the US State Dept. (September 28, 2012, the designation was changed.) In spite of this labeling, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed that "since 2004, the United States has considered the residents of Camp Ashraf 'noncombatants' and 'protected persons' under the Geneva Conventions." So the US has an obligation to protect the residents. 3,300 are no longer at Camp Ashraf. They have moved to Camp Hurriyah for the most part. A tiny number has received asylum in other countries. Approximately 100 were still at Camp Ashraf when it was attacked Sunday. That was the second attack this year alone. February 9th of this year, the Ashraf residents were again attacked, this time the ones who had been relocated to Camp Hurriyah. Trend News Agency counted 10 dead and over one hundred injured. Prensa Latina reported, " A rain of self-propelled Katyusha missiles hit a provisional camp of Iraqi opposition Mujahedin-e Khalk, an organization Tehran calls terrorists, causing seven fatalities plus 50 wounded, according to an Iraqi official release."
"As a Jew," Debbie Wasserman, shouldn't attacks on encampments of persons alarm you? Attacks carried out by government forces? Shouldn't that bother you? Or do use Nazi Germany allusions as rarely as you use soap and water? There is no oil crisis, we need only figure out how to tap into all the oil on Debbie's face and in her hair and the term "energy crisis" will be a relic of the past.
Liars supporting an attack on Syria say that a red line has been crossed?
How many times is Nouri al-Maliki going to be allowed to attack the Ashraf community before your so-called 'humanitarian' concerns kick in? Unlike Barack's claim that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has gassed (and killed) a community, there are no doubts as to what Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has done. Despite giving his word to the US government at the end of 2008 that he would not attack the Ashraf community, he has repeatedly done so. He has killed them repeatedly -- so much so that it could be argued the world's 'exit plan' for the Ashraf community is passage by bullet.
Independent Catholic News reports today:
A spokesman for Archbishop Vincent Nichols said: “The Iraqi government has a moral and legal duty to protect the residents of Camp Ashraf. The Baghdad authorities must ensure the safety of the residents to prevent any more violence being inflicted on them and to facilitate their swift resettlement in a third country, under international supervision.”
The Anglican Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard, said he was "troubled by reports of the latest attacks" - "and by news that Iraq has been denying the Ashraf residents the right to family visits and full access to proper medical treatment".
Bishop Pritchard said that he would like to see United States' forces "take back responsibility for protecting Camp Ashraf".
Yet Debbie Wasserman-Schultz hasn't said one word -- "as a Jew" or as a member of the US government, she's not said one word. John Kerry hasn't said one word. The US government has a legal obligation to the Ashraf community. By international law, they are bound to secure the safety of these residents. Barack cites no international law aspect to his desire to attack Syria because there is no such law. And, get honest, there's no real humanitarian concern about Syria or the residents of Syria.
The liars can't fight with facts so they make emotional appeals. You see that on every level. Marcia noted last night that Russian President Vladimir Putin rightly called out the lies John Kerry has been spouting off lately. Today, Matthew Lee (AP) reports the official State Dept response to that: spokesperson Jen Psaki declared Kerry to be "a decorated combat veteran who has had more than words aimed at him." Oh, alright then.
What the hell does that have to do with whether or not he's a liar? And, excuse me, but in the United States, roughly 40% of the population feels that "decorated combat veteran" Kerry lied about his Vietnam experiences, he is widely and publicly denounced by other veterans of that war, and didn't he toss ribbons of honor in a protest? Yeah, he did. So maybe next time Jen has no logical response to "Kerry lied," she can describe him as "a half-decorated combat veteran"?
And please grasp how sad and disgusting Psaki's words are. She is trying to shut down a discussion by gasping "combat veteran!" Sorry, Jen, it's not a protective shield.
More importantly, how dare the supposed diplomatic branch of the United States try to hide behind the Pentagon? That's the best they can offer? Well that's Barack's administration for you: The Worst and The Dullest.
And sadly, they can't even lie well. Bully Boy Bush has them beat clearly. Grasp the current administration is not just liars, they are bad liars. John Glaser (Antiwar.com) compares Kerry's lying to Congress to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper's lies -- and no one in this administration ever gets punished for lying but damned if Barack doesn't go after truth tellers like whistle blowers Chelsea Manning and Ed Snowden and reporters like the New York Times' James Risen. Former US House Rep Dennis Kucinich offers a piece on ten claims they are making that have not been backed up. Here's the first one:
The questions the Obama administration needs to answer before Congress can even consider voting on Syria:
Claim #1. The administration claims a chemical weapon was used.
The UN inspectors are still completing their independent evaluation.
Who provided the physiological samples of sarin gas on which your evaluation is based? Were any other non-weaponized chemical agents discovered or sampled?
Who from the United States was responsible for the chain of custody?
Where was the laboratory analysis conducted?
Were U.S. officials present during the analysis of the samples? Does your sample show military grade or lower grade sarin gas?
Can you verify that your sample matches the exact composition of the alleged Syrian government composition?
Dennis is out of Congress. Sadly, 73-year-old Nancy Pelosi remains there. Vast amounts of plastic surgery have obscured her age (though not made her look young or even younger). They apparently have obscured her judgment as well. David Jackson (USA Today) notes she gushed that Barack is one "tough hombre."
We get it, Nance, no one sports a bigger strap-on dildo than you, you are the exception that proves Freud's laughable penis envy theory, we get it. But as you praise Barack's Hombre Diplomacia grasp it's no different than the Cowboy Diplomacy of Bully Boy Bush which you used to call out.
Like John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi is Catholic. Vatican Radio reports, "Pope Francis renewed his appeal for peace in Syria and throughout the world on Wednesday, once again inviting Christians of every denomination, believers of every religious tradition and all people of good will to take part in the worldwide fast and vigil of prayer and penance for peace, which he has called for September 7th, the vigil of the Feast of the Nativity of Our Lady, whom we venerate as Queen of Peace." Independent Catholic News adds, "There will be prayers for peace in St Peter's Square and in the great Umayyad Mosque in Damascus, this Saturday. The Grand Mufti of Syria, Ahmad Badreddin Hassou, spiritual leader of Sunni Islam, has welcomed the Pope's appeal and will be there praying and fasting for peace in his country. In an official letter sent,through the Apostolic Nunciature in Damascus, the Mufti said he is preparing to participate in the special pro-Syria day on September 7, and proposes organizing an interfaith meeting with the Hoiy See." And AFP quotes the head of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Monsignor Mario Toso, declaring, "The Syria conflict has all the ingredients to explode into a war of global dimensions. The solution to Syria's problems is not in armed intervention. Violence will not decrease and there is a risk of a conflagration that extends to other countries."
Many world leaders are in St. Petersburg today for the G-20. Russian President Vladimir Putin is presiding. Reuters notes, "Pope Francis, in a letter to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the G20 conference, urged world leaders to "lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution" in Syria." Vatican Radio has posted the letter in full and we'll include this section:
From this standpoint, it is clear that, for the world’s peoples, armed conflicts are always a deliberate negation of international harmony, and create profound divisions and deep wounds which require many years to heal. Wars are a concrete refusal to pursue the great economic and social goals that the international community has set itself, as seen, for example, in the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, the many armed conflicts which continue to afflict the world today present us daily with dramatic images of misery, hunger, illness and death. Without peace, there can be no form of economic development. Violence never begets peace, the necessary condition for development.
The meeting of the Heads of State and Government of the twenty most powerful economies, with two-thirds of the world’s population and ninety per cent of global GDP, does not have international security as its principal purpose. Nevertheless, the meeting will surely not forget the situation in the Middle East and particularly in Syria. It is regrettable that, from the very beginning of the conflict in Syria, one-sided interests have prevailed and in fact hindered the search for a solution that would have avoided the senseless massacre now unfolding. The leaders of the G20 cannot remain indifferent to the dramatic situation of the beloved Syrian people which has lasted far too long, and even risks bringing greater suffering to a region bitterly tested by strife and needful of peace. To the leaders present, to each and every one, I make a heartfelt appeal for them to help find ways to overcome the conflicting positions and to lay aside the futile pursuit of a military solution. Rather, let there be a renewed commitment to seek, with courage and determination, a peaceful solution through dialogue and negotiation of the parties, unanimously supported by the international community. Moreover, all governments have the moral duty to do everything possible to ensure humanitarian assistance to those suffering because of the conflict, both within and beyond the country’s borders.
Adam Schreck
Last night, Ruth weighed in on how Texas and Mississippi National Guard are at present not honoring marriage equality. Senator Patty Murray serves on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee (and chaired it until becoming, this year, the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee). Her office issued the following on the new order regarding the military and marriage equality:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Murray Press Office
Thursday, September 05, 2013 (202) 224-2834
Senator Murray’s Statement on VA Benefits for Same-Sex Spouses
WASHINGTON,
D.C. – Today, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) released the following
statement after U.S. Attorney General Holder announced yesterday that
President Obama has directed the Justice Department to stop enforcing Department of Veterans Affairs provisions which deny full access to spousal benefits for same-sex married couples:
“This
long-awaited move by the Obama Administration is a major step towards
finally ensuring each of our heroes and their spouses receive the same
quality care and services once they leave the military – no matter who
they love. And after pressing Secretary Shinseki to expedite the process
for dignified, same-sex burials in our national cemeteries, I am
thrilled yesterday’s news will no longer force veterans to face
uncertainty when mourning the loss of their spouse. Our veterans and
their families, who selflessly served our nation and have given so much,
will finally be afforded the benefits they have so rightly earned. This
is not only a matter of fairness and equity, it is simply the right
thing to do.”
###
---
Meghan Roh
Press Secretary | New Media Director
Office of U.S. Senator Patty Murray
Mobile: (202) 365-1235
Office: (202) 224-2834
No comments:
Post a Comment