Lie upon lie, upon lie as reasons to attack Syria

Washington’s lies about the need for attacking Syria are flying faster than a swarm of flies to honey.

President Obama and his cohorts claim they have proof Syrian President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons on his people. What proof? The “proof” supplied by Israeli intelligence? Oh, it’s a matter of national security and we the people can’t see it.

If Assad is the culprit, then why are reports and videos surfacing that it was the rebel terrorists who used sarin gas—not just in a Damascus suburb but in Aleppo, too, in addition to committing other atrocities?

Remember all those WMD Saddam Hussein allegedly had? They were nonexistent. And George W. Bush claiming Saddam tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger in order to build nuclear weapons, after former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, upon his fact-finding mission to Niger, said the document, published by the Times of London, was a forgery? How about former British Prime Minister Tony Blair declaring that Saddam could unleash missiles within 45 minutes that would strike British bases in Cyprus, Greece and Israel? Then there was then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s remark, “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,” which was picked up by then Vice President Dick Cheney who said, in an interview with CBS’s Bob Schieffer, “The fact is that the threat to the United States now of a 9/11 occurring with a group of terrorists armed not with airline tickets and box cutters, but with a nuclear weapon in the middle of one of our own cities, is the greatest threat we face. It’s a very real threat. It’s something that we have to worry about and defeat every single day.”

Yes, everything they told the people about Saddam so they could invade Iraq and get their puppets to kill him was a lie. But the lies haven’t ended. Now the lies are about Syria’s Assad government.

Ask yourselves, does it make any sense that Assad, who had invited UN weapons inspectors into Syria to investigate the March sarin attack in Aleppo, would have ordered the August 21 chemical attack in the Ghouta suburb of Damascus, when the inspectors were staying in a hotel a few miles away? Assad may not be our cuppa but he isn’t a stupid man.

NBC’s Nightly News is the latest of the corporate media to report the White House is using grisly YouTube videos, allegedly showing the aftermath of the chemical attack on Ghouta, to make its case for striking Iraq. Imagine, YouTube videos. Worse, the administration treated the videos as if they were secret evidence and showed them, last week behind closed doors, to a select group of lawmakers. Yes, you are reading this correctly: YouTube videos online for the world to see. This week, the administration plans to show them to the public. Are you asking if these people are for real?

And speaking of national security, President Obama is claiming not only US national security and the world’s depends of lobbing missiles and/or dropping bombs on Syria to punish Assad for their lies about him ordering the gassing of innocent men, women and children. Assad has done nothing to either the US or the West, so how is anyone’s national security at risk?

Then there is the matter of the red line, which Obama claimed, during last week’s visit to Sweden, “I didn’t set a red line. The world set a red line. The world set a red line when government’s representing 98 percent of the world’s populations said the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent.” But he said last year, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” It’s hard keeping the lies straight, isn’t it?

Yes, the use of chemical weapons is abhorrent. The US should know as it’s used them eight times and, while not chemical weapons, used munitions coated with toxic depleted uranium Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan, and dropped two nuclear bombs on Japan. (See 10 Chemical Weapons Attacks Washington Doesn’t Want You to Talk About)

So what are all the lies about the need for illegally attacking Syria, possibly setting the whole Middle East aflame or even starting World War III (or IV, depending on how you count) about? It’s about the elephants in the room they don’t want you to see.

Who are the elephants? One elephant is the Western banksters who profit from every war, regardless of whether it’s a win, lose or draw. The banksters make money from the loans they give to armament manufacturers and contractors who sell the necessary support supplies to the military. The banksters also have to make sure the US dollar stay as the world’s reserve currency.

For instance, in the case of Saddam, who was our boy until he wasn’t, he became a bad boy when he wanted euros over dollars for Iraq’s oil and was planning to set up Iraq’s own bank, plus its own bourse. The banksters saw that as a threat to the dollar. Worse, if Iraq had its own bank, Islam doesn’t allow usury. No usury, no profit for the Western banksters. So Saddam had to go.

The second elephant in the room is the corporations that make money selling armaments and supplies to all buyers. No wars, no profits.

The third elephant is the energy corporations and Qatar that banked (forgive the pun) on building a natural gas pipeline through Syria, from the Persian Gulf to Turkey. Assad was a bad boy and said no. Instead, Assad opted to sign a $10 billion deal with Iraq and Iran for a pipeline running from “Iran’s giant South Pars field, traversing Iraq and Syria, with a possible extension to Lebanon.” That was a slap in the face to Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani.

The fourth and fifth elephants in the room are Saudi Arabia and Israel. As Reuters reported last Monday, “Israel and Saudi Arabia have little love for each other but both are pressing their mutual friend in the White House to hit President Bashar al-Assad hard. And both do so with one eye fixed firmly not on Syria but on their common adversary -Iran.”

Strange bedfellows, no doubt, each with their own agenda. The Saudis want Assad gone. Al-Monitor notes, “After scoring a victory in Egypt, Saudi Arabia is hoping to achieve the same swift success in Syria, where the struggle between the regime and the rebels seems ever more complex and bloody. If it does, Saudi Arabia will emerge as the main arbiter of Arab regional politics for the foreseeable future. If it does not, its claim to regional leadership will be seriously undermined.”

Israel wants its perceived enemies gone: Syria, Lebanon and Iran. And if the US will do the dirty work, all the better. Then it will be a matter of ridding itself of the pesky Palestinians and on to Eretz Israel (Greater Israel).

Seeing their greatest chance of accomplishing the deed and ignoring the potential catastrophic consequences, Tel Aviv is applying all pressure, via the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and other Israel lobbies, on the Obama administration and Congress to launch a criminal attack on Syria.

Politico reported, “Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning” this week “to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon. They are expected to lobby virtually every member of Congress, arguing that ‘barbarism’ by the Assad regime cannot be tolerated, and that failing to act would ‘send a message’ to Tehran that the U.S. won’t stand up to hostile countries’ efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction, according to a source with the group.

The sixth elephant in the overcrowded room is the United States, whose masters believe it is America’s manifest destiny to rule the world. Hence, it must assure its status as the world’s only superpower whether it’s by using soft or hard power to keep its vassal states in line and bringing peripheral states in line by crushing them. Forget all that talk about freedom and democracy; it’s just more lies.

However, all the elephants in the room will be ignored and the lies will continue. The snake oil salesman in chief, Barack Obama, will come before the American people tomorrow night and serve up another pack of lies in an attempt to sell the people on why Syria must be attacked, even though an overwhelming majority of the people are against it. If he rings up a no sale with the people and Congress, it’s anyone’s guess what he will do. Some in Congress say if he fails to get congressional approval and launches an attack anyway, they will immediately file impeachment papers—that could be a lie, too.

Bev Conover is the editor and publisher of Intrepid Report. Email her at

3 Responses to Lie upon lie, upon lie as reasons to attack Syria

  1. Who can think up so many lies just to get to their end; one that can hurt so many people? Who? Evil people. Greedy people. Or, as Scott M. Peck called them in his book, People of the Lie.

  2. The “red line” rhetoric works great as a propaganda tool and as an obvious ploy to create an arbitrary deadline. The color red is associated with blood and danger helping to stir up fear and anxiety, while the line creates the idea that there is no room for negotiation or compromise (they’re either behind the line or over the line). It’s a way to control the timeline when certain events “need” to happen so war mongers have an excuse to rush through decision-making and public debate before the lies can be completely exposed and become common knowledge (though it’s already happening through many sites such as this).

  3. Pingback: The Real Reasons for War | Desultory Heroics