The shell game

So even if Syria gives up their chemical weapons, we have to bomb them anyway because Iran!

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States needs to strike Syria in part to send a message to its ally Iran over its nuclear program, President Barack Obama’s national security adviser said Monday.

Susan Rice, joining a major public effort by Obama to persuade a skeptical Congress, said the United States was morally bound to respond to Syrian President Bashar Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Rice said that US action on Syria was also critical for the broader influence of the United States, which has joined Israel and European nations in warning Iran against developing nuclear weapons.

“We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon,” Rice said at the New America Foundation, a think tank.

4 thoughts on “The shell game

  1. The shell game is over. The propaganda has won. The truth has been gassed. It always was about messaging Iran. Putin’s gambit about locking down Syria’s chemical weapons was a tactical error. Now the question before Congress is maintaining a credible threat to make Syria relinquish the arsenal. War is incidental to that threat (until after it is authorized). I am just staggered by how this evolved. The Colin Powell presentation to the UN contained spun evidence that in hindsight was preposterous (bull dozed buildings, pictures of railroad tracks and a vial of something or other). They betrayed the weakness of the intelligence as strength and the media just sucked it in. The lie blew sky high and the American public figured it out. So this time the Administration leaks barely enough evidence to sustain an investigation into whether sarin gas was used by someone and offers “trust us” it was Assad in lieu of a scintilla of evidence about who did it. Kerry actually has produced less than Powell and the entire controversy has moved past the non-proof to the next question of what to do about the attack. The media (100% of them) are now chasing the shell that doesn’t have the pea in it because the administration put the pea down an evidence free hole. How hard would it be for the CIA to retrieve pieces of the Assad rocket from the “friendlies” who came under attack and GC for traces of sarin? They probably did just that. Where is the friggin proof that Assad poked the US warning in the eye and risked suicide by cop (certainly the fate of Saddam, Moammar and Osama would tend to be in his mind)? The entire debate has been jiggered off the only real question to the problematic proposition of bombing. Another fail for the media as a whole and frankly it is damn perturbing that all of the blogs are being led by the nose into the same cul de sac.

  2. Hillary and the other neo-cons are trying to sell us on the idea that Obama’s threatening to go to war with Syria was the ‘only’ reason that Russia made its chemical weapons stockpile proposal yesterday. That is pure spin. To the uninitiated their argument might seem logical. Bu the warmongers know full well that it is not. The neo-cons are aware that nobody wants this war. Not the American people. Not the Congress. Not the international community (except for Israel and Saudi Arabia; who also want to take out Iran). What the neo-cons and Zionists are attempting to do is to save face by doing what they always do……..lie.

Comments are closed.