Chuck Todd: WSJ/NBC Poll 'Disaster for the President'--Obama has Officially Failed

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.

Pat Buchanan: Congress Should Veto Obama’s War

Congress should veto Obama’s war

...For consider Congress’ broad assent to news that Obama has decided to attack Syria, a nation that has not attacked us and against which Congress has never authorized a war.

Why is Obama making plans to launch cruise missiles on Syria?  According to a “senior administration official … who insisted on anonymity,” President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his own people last week in the two-year-old Syrian civil war.

But who deputized the United States to walk the streets of the world pistol-whipping bad actors?  Where does our imperial president come off drawing “red lines” and ordering nations not to cross them?  Neither the Security Council nor Congress nor NATO nor the Arab League has authorized war on Syria.  Who made Barack Obama the Wyatt Earp of the Global Village?

Moreover, where is the evidence that WMDs were used and that it had to be Assad who ordered them? Such an attack makes no sense.  Firing a few shells of gas at Syrian civilians was not going to advance Assad’s cause but, rather, was certain to bring universal condemnation on his regime and deal cards to the War Party, which wants a U.S. war on Syria as the back door to war on Iran.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/congress-should-veto-obamas-war/#2zZLUtJBA3Jj0E3v.99

Why U.S. Foreign Policy Must Change from Global Democratic Jihad to National Self-Defense

She [America] has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart. She has seen that probably for centuries to come, all the contests of that Aceldama the European world, will be contests of inveterate power, and emerging right. Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.... 

She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit....
[America's] glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind. She has a spear and a shield: but the motto upon her shield is, Freedom, Independence, Peace. This has been her Declaration: this has been, as far as her necessary intercourse with the rest of mankind would permit, her practice.

        --John Quincy Adams, Independence Day Address 1821

"It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

       -- President George W. Bush, Inaugural Address 2005.

It is more than ironic that while Republicans appeal to America's Founders (most justly) that they fail to heed them when it comes to foreign policy.  George Washington warned of "entangling interests" or alliances as dangerous and Presidents like Adams above extolled America's restraint in interference.  Their view was not that America should be a militaristic global policeman (and they never extolled "democracy" as ideal) but only an example of freedom and liberty.  It's time for the Founder's view of Foreign Policy to be given a fair hearing.

In this regard, Pat Buchanan, a Republican with credible expertise in several Presidential administrations, is a breath of fresh air compared to both the Republican Establishment's and Democrats' "utopian view" (as he calls it) on foreign policy and alleged "necessary" wars, none of which are for the self-defense of America. His views are seldom permitted in either conservative debates and forums or in the liberal Mainstream Media. So listen to him here for at least an alternative, and in our opinion more rational view, about war.

He condemns American involvement in "regime change" started by the neoconservatives (which too many republicans applauded without just cause) in the Middle East since 2001 during the Bush administration.

He condemns American involvement in Syria to overthrow the Assad regime (which Obama and the democrats, and republicans like Rep. Shelly Moore Capito applaud) and articulates why it is stupid and actually supports radical Islamic groups that are bound to be no better.

He explains why the American Empire in foreign policy (which actually began during the Civil War when Washington invaded the Southern States to consolidate power by force) is a foolish "utopian view" for changing the world (really toward global government, abolishing sovereignty) for the pretense of "making the world safe for democracy" (as democrats W. Wilson and F.D.R. used) or to "end tyranny in the world" (the phrase George W. Bush invoked on his Second Inaugural Address).

He also is adamant that if this course is continued, especially in backing any attack on Iran, it will bring terrible consequences to "my Country" (now here is a better view of American patriotism demonstrated by judicious self-restraint instead of war-mongering) as well as to "the whole world". Indeed, both America's economy would be greatly ruined (i.e. the consequences on oil prices, which would harm the entire economy, as well as national debt) and a probable world war in the Middle East would result.



It's time that a more sober view of foreign policy and its consequences should be considered, before it's too late, as AIPAC and radical pro-Israel and radical "world democracy" revolutionaries continue to drown out Americans' influence in our own Congress.  What America needs is a true National Defense instead of a National Offense policy, which takes us to war without constitutional declarations of war, per the historic Christian 'Just War' Theory of self-defense alone, by Congress.  Until America changes this it is engaging in Global Vigilantism and supporting what could be called justly a Global Democratic Jihad, with terrible consequences on our own nation. 

A history of the Rise & Fall of the Roman Empire and its aggressive PAX ROMANA should suffice to be a most conspicuous example to any naysayers against our criticism of this dangerous bipartisan foreign policy toward a global PAX AMERICANA or PAX DEMOCRATICA which has been in progress for 150 years now.  Who would deny that the Isles of Great Britain once fought against the tyranny of the Roman Empire?  After all, one type of "tyranny" is often replaced by another, always under the pretense of "liberation" (or things like "Operation Iraqi Freedom").  Doesn't this all, then, look so familiar, from a historical perspective?  "American exceptionalism", frequently invoked to cloak all American wars as moral and just, should not blind anyone to this truth and republicans and democrats ought to heed the speeches and examples of America's Founders and early Presidents once again.

Syria's Nuclear Program Intel Faked; Welcome to Neocon Studios

Welcome to Neocon Studios: Another production from those who brought you the Iraq War. The editor's notes at start set the stage as the author traces it through.

Allegedly US and Israel struck Syria with war planes a while back claiming it was a nuclear weapons program targeted and tied to North Korea. The intelligence, compiled by none other than Israel, has now been released. The evidence just happens to be "fixed around the policy" to go to war, just like Iraq, and before Bush's term is out.

Syria has denied the report here: Syrian envoy says CIA fabricated evidence. More on the official intelligence presentation here.

The propaganda coming from Israel and the neoconservative administration should be all too familiar and therefore considered with a skeptic's eye:

"There is no doubt that Saddam has amassed weapons of mass destruction...."

--Vice Pres. Dick Cheney, member Project for New American Century

clipped from www.globalresearch.ca The "Syrian Reactor Show" - a Fake? Global Research Editor's Note The following article, which includes photographic material, focuses on the inconsistencies regarding an alleged US "document" about Syria's nuclear efforts. The format and style bears a canny resemblance to that presented to the UN Security Council in February 2003, regarding Iraq alleged weapons of mass destruction. The Powell presentation was based on fake material and fabricated intelligence. Washington intends to use the Syria document to fabricate a WMD threat emanating from Syria. The presentation is an elaborate information operation. If one sees it only once and is not really concentrated it is even convincing. But if you analyze it you will find that it jumps in time and space and adds stuff in animations and graphics that are not supported in the photographed evidence. this isn't only a photograph. The "windows" and lines on the facade are much finer than other details of the quite blurry picture.