Syria and WMDs, The Iraq Parallel

This excellent interview with someone who knows what he's talking about and who helped Colin Powell make the "case" for Iraq before the U.N..  Congress should carefully consider his experienced viewpoint instead of listening to AIPAC, the neoconservatives, and "the McCainiacs" (see previous article by Pat Buchanan) who support it for the sake of the aggressive "new middle east" Israeli agenda.

Note his healthy scepticism as a U.S. military official during the Bush administration about the "intelligence" of precisely who used the alleged chemical weapons which is more in line with Putin than Obama, and who just called Secretary Kerry a liar! 

Remember the intelligence from "curveball" that claimed that Saddam Hussein was obtaining "enriched uranium" from Nigeria to justify action into Iraq.

Congress should also listen more to the vast majority of the American people who oppose a strike on Syria.  Yes, that especially includes Rep. Shelly Moore Capito who is inclined to support wars for AIPAC and seldom listens to war dissent from West Virginians.  (Sen. Manchin has the same tendency until its popular to withdraw).  Surprisingly, she has been reluctant thus far to support the Syrian strike, saying

“I’ve been in Congress for a long enough time to know that, just because the intelligence says it’s so on first blush, I’m not sure we’re all going to accept that without the deep detail that I think we need to have and that the President should bring to Congress,” she said.

It all hinges on the pretended "intelligence".  And also which party presents it, unfortunately.  But is that still enough reason to support American military conflict in another Middle East conflict that does not threaten Americans?  Another Middle East engagement will certainly hurt our economy and deficit spending as oil prices will rise again and Congress will spend billions more.