Friday, August 30, 2013

Israel is “key target” for US intelligence

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 30, 2013

Before reading Fresno Zionism's report on the CIA's "leaked" by Snowden's "Black Budget", I found another link that also breaks it down with graphs:  Top Secret US Intelligence 'Black Budget' Published For First Time After Being Leaked By Snowden  
Since Snowden revealed to what extent our federal agencies are spying on Conservative Americans, through their IRS/NSA/PRISM programs, it should not surprise us that this administration has difficulty recognizing "enemies of the State" and this nation's allies.


 Thursday, August 29th, 2013 at 10:44 pm
Antenna of the US AN/TPY-2 X-band radar system set up in the Negev. It is ostensibly there to monitor Iranian missile launches, but it can also see a small aircraft taking off from anywhere in Israel. Only American personnel are allowed anywhere near it.

The Washington Post has a document that it says it obtained from Edward Snowden which it calls the ‘black budget’ of the various US intelligence services. It has published only a small part of the material “after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods.”

The Post notes the growth of the CIA budget to almost $15billion in 2013, which I have to admit is a remarkable number, comparable to the GDP of Jamaica or Mozambique, and 50% more than that of the NSA — which, after all,  has to read our email and listen to our phone calls. The total for all the intelligence agencies is $52.6 billion, close to the GDP of Croatia.

But naturally, the first thing I did was search for ‘Israel’ and here is what I found on pages 4-5:
Although the budget is declining, the mission is not. Prioritizing our requirements was a key element to produce a budget that meets customer needs, supports critical capabilities, addresses gaps, and helps to maintain a strategic advantage. In the FY 2013 NIP [National Intelligence Program] budget, the IC [Intelligence Community] makes targeted investments in:

o Counterintelligence (CI). To further safeguard our classified networks, we continue to strengthen insider threat detection capabilities across the Community. In addition, we are investing in target surveillance and offensive CI against key targets, such as China, Russia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, and Cuba.[my emphasis]

Wait, what?

We are making “targeted investments” (read: spending more money) in spying on these ‘targets’ and attempting to prevent them from spying on us — and Israel is a “key target” in the company of  China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan, and Cuba!

This is just plain astonishing, considering that the other “key targets” encompass most of the main threats against US security today.

Keep in mind that unlike Russia, China and Iran, Israel’s main goal is survival, not expansion of its influence. Unlike Iran and Pakistan, it does not harbor terrorists or operate world-wide terrorist networks. Unlike Cuba, it is not a semi-hostile nation a few miles from US borders. Unlike China, it is not engaged in massive theft of intellectual property. The Israeli people are probably among the most pro-American in the world, and the government is remarkably ‘flexible’ — in my opinion, too much so — when called upon to subordinate its own interests to the demands of the US.

The Post suggests that the emphasis on Israel is because “[it] is a U.S. ally but has a history of espionage attempts against the United States.” So do many allies, and as has recently become clear from new documents released in the Pollard case, Israel’s interests — unlike, say, Iran’s — are not in subverting or damaging the US, but in collecting information about threats against itself coming from Arab nations, Russia, Iran, etc.

The obsessive interest in Israel surely can’t be about the ‘peace process’. I mean, really, how important or potentially dangerous is this when compared to the aggressive spread of radical regimes in the Muslim world, the possible implosion of Egypt, or a Syrian civil war that has so far taken about 100,000 lives including children killed by Sarin gas?

And as far as threats go, are they watching the infiltration of Hizballah into South and Central America? Now there’s a threat to the US!

For once, I can’t blame Obama. This has been going on for years (viz., the Pollard case).

No, there is really only one explanation for this fixation on Israel by the US intelligence community. If I may be permitted a technical term, they are batshit crazy.


Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 30, 2013
Obama & Biden: Past Statements On War Powers Come Back To Bite
It would be good to review Obama's own words, posted in the Boston Globe on December 20, 2007, in a "Question and Answer" form.  His response to Question #2 is very informative as to how he thought before he became President:
Question: In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
 Answer (Obama): The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.
As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
and, look at this one:  Obama & Biden: Past Statements On War Powers Come Back To Bite

B Swann
August 28, 2013

The war drums are pounding and President Barack Obama is each day closer to taking military action against the Syrian government.  There are major questions about why the U.S. would become involved in Syria and whether or not the claim that the Assad regime used chemical weapons on citizens living in a Damascus suburb are based in fact.  Administration officials say that military action against Syria would be done “not to create a regime change” but some members of Congress aren’t buying it.
“If its not an effort to exact regime change then what is it?  Is it just retaliation? Is it bullying? Is it showing everybody in the world that we have missiles and we can fire them into your country because we don’t like what we see?” asks Republican Kentucky Congressman Thomas Massie.
Congressman Massie talked exclusively with about the push by the Obama Administration to draw the U.S. into war with Syria.
“When you deliver missiles into somebody’s country, that is an act of war.  We can argue about whether having economic sanctions are an act of war.  But clearly when you deliver missiles, if somebody delivered missiles into the central United States or anywhere on American territory that would be an act of war.”
Massie went on to talk about the claims made by Secretary of State John Kerry that there is “no doubt” that the President Bashar al Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons a week ago.  Massie says the evidence is not clear at all.
“We don’t have proof of who used the weapons, or who used the gas.  And it is also not clear to me how you improve the situation where chemical weapons were used by delivering kinetic weapons. If we send in airstrikes or missiles from ships, it is not clear to me how killing more people is going to improve the situation.”
So, who has the authority to the hold the administration accountable?  The Congress of the United States.  It is Congress and Congress alone that has the authority to authorize an act of war against another nation.  Back in June, Rep. Massie authored a bill titled the “War Power Protection Act of 2013”.  At the time, he had 8 co-sponsors but that number has now risen to 13.  Rep. Massie says it is time for Congress to quit abdicating its responsibility on this matter and  instead enforce its Constitutional authority to authorize or deny military involvement in Syria.
“There will be civilian causalities in any conflict.  If we get involved we are going to cause civilian causalities and I think that is wrong when our interests are not clear.  It is morally wrong.  And this is a country by the way (Syria) that has not expressed aggression toward the United States at this point.  And as you pointed out, we are not in a situation where there is an imminent threat to our well being.” Massie stated.
The Congressman was referring to the 1973 War Powers Act which allows for the President to act without Congressional approval for 30 days.  Where that act has been misrepresented by lawmakers and media is that the Act only allows the President to do so if the United States is under threat of imminent attack.  Congressman Massie’s bill, in addition to preventing the President from entering a war without Congressional approval,  also blocks the U.S. from providing aid to the rebels in Syria.
“The bill itself deals with military or para-military purposes.  Obviously if we wanted to provide humanitarian aid, my bill would not prevent it.” says Massie.
As to the question of whether or not a strike against Syria could lead to an impeachment of the President, Massie says that is doubtful.
“People have asked me would you bring impeachment proceedings against the President? The harsh fact of the matter is that there aren’t enough votes in the Senate to affect an impeachment of the President.  It requires a 2/3rds vote of the Senate and before you get the process started, it requires a majority of the members on the judiciary committee.” explains Massie, who goes on to say,
“People should encourage their Congressman to support my bill, its HR 2507.  It’s called the “War Powers Protection Act.”  We only have 13 brave souls in Congress who are co-sponsoring this bill and it basically says that the President cannot intervene in Syria until he comes to Congress, its that simple.”
Of course, the role of Congress is not to sit back and do nothing while missiles are fired at another nation and then attempt to punish the President afterward.  The job of Congress is to stand up before military action is taken. Rep. Massie warns the American people as well to watch out for language being used, even by House leadership when they say that the President must first “consult” with Congress.
“Our leadership in the House of Representatives says that the President should consult with Congress.  Our leadership is not asking them to come and get permission and I think that the Administration needs to come and get permission.  And they can’t just come and talk to three or four members on the Foreign Affairs Committee or the Military Committee or just the leadership.  They need to ask the entire body in the House of Representatives and in the Senate for authorization or for a declaration of war before he can proceed.”
You can also follow the Congressman on Twitter @RepThomasMassie  or on Facebook

11 Devastating Photos Of the Yosemite Rim Fire

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 30, 2013


11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,

The Yosemite Rim Fire has received media attention as yet another example of the type of natural disaster that is striking the country with increasing frequency. Fortunately, this one has had few human casualties, in part because many precautions have been taken.
California Governor Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency for San Francisco County on August 19th. The public utilities of California's Bay Area are located about 140 miles west of the fire; as of Sunday, the fire had not reached the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, which supplies about 85% of San Francisco's drinking water, but a statement emphasized that there was plenty of water available in local reservoirs. The incidental cause of the fire remains under investigation, but the role of climate change in allowing such blazes cannot be underestimated. In part, they result from a "fire debt" as a result of decades of fire suppression, but conditions in the area have also become increasingly warm and dry, making a "tinderbox" out of the area.
1. This infernal night-time vista
The Yosemite Rim fire at night. Though the fire hasn't threatened population centers or heavily trafficked areas of the national park, the potential of this fire has been immense: the fire tripled in size from last Wednesday to last Thursday and doubled again from Thursday to Friday. 
2. It's visible from outer space
A NASA moderate resolution imaging spectroradiometer (MODIS) has captured images of the Rim Fire, officially making in visible from space (at 250m/pixel). In a different photo from yesterday morning, poster Stuart Rankin mentioned that pollution had spread as far as Nevada and the Burning Man Festival.
3. This house covered in tin foil
11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,
Via: AP
In this photo provided to the AP by the National Park Service, a house is covered in tin foil on Tuesday by CalFire crews trying to protect structures from damage. Fortunately, by then the firefighters were starting to gain some ground.
4. Orange jumpsuits, blazing flames
11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,
Via: AP
Inmate firefighters walked among burning trees in the Northwest edge of Yosemite State Park. In 2008, the inmates were paid $1/hour; they have time shaved off their sentences in exchange for their work. As they battle the raging blazes, sweat pours "like Niagara Falls" under their suits, firefighter Anthony Candido told the Christian Science Monitor.
The program saves California taxpayers $80 million a year on average, but critics say it takes jobs from regular workers without providing the protections to inmates that it would to regular firefighters. 
5. The destruction it has left in its wake
11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,
Via: AP
A firefighter stands atop a truck and surveys a campground destroyed by fire on Monday. Firefighters made some headway on Monday, and by Wednesday evening the fires had slowed to devouring 300 acres per hour rather than the rate of 1000 it had reached a day before, or 3,000 at its peak last week. Full containment, however, isn't expected until September 10.
6. The new, post-apocalyptic sky
11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,
Via: AP
A burned tree is juxtaposed with the rising sun near state Highway 120 on Sunday. Smoke hasreached cities as far away as Carson City and Reno, Nevada, five hours away, where Renown Regional Medical Center has experienced a slight uptick in emergency room visits.
7. This California National Guard Sergeant looking into the face of danger
11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,
Via: AP
In this photo from Thursday, August 22, Sgt. Chris Boni, crew chief of the 1-140th Aviation Battalion (Air Assault) from the California Army National Guard, releases water onto the rim fire.Yesterday, the California National Guard said it had launched a drone typically used in combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to fly over the fire, gathering information that can help direct firefighters on the ground. The National Guard is hoping to expand its domestic role.
8. This burned-out car
11, devastating, photos, of, the, yosemite, rim, fire,
Via: AP
A charred SUV sits on a campground destroyed by the wildfire on Monday. As of Wednesday night, the wildfire had officially become the sixth largest in recorded California history.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

ALERT: Formal Articles of Impeachment Prepared -- August 29, 2013

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 29, 2013

Resolution Impeaching Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I

In his conduct while President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has willfully corrupted and manipulated the executive branch to increase its power and destroy the balance of powers between the three branches of government that is established by the Constitution of the United States.

The means used to implement this course of conduct or scheme included one or more of the following acts:

(1) Shortly after being sworn in for his first term as President of the United States, Barack Hussein Obama began creating new departments and appointing Czars to oversee these departments. These Czars were never submitted to the United States Senate for approval as required by Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution. In addition, these Czars and the Departments have budgets that are not subject to being controlled by Congress as provided for by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. He also made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess.

(2) Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that the President of the United States “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…” Barack Hussein Obama, in violation of his oath of office has repeatedly ignored this Constitutional mandate by refusing to enforce laws against illegal immigration, defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and refusing to enforce Federal voting laws.

(3) Article 1 of the Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the U.S. government and sets forth the powers of the Senate and House of Representatives to make laws. These powers are exclusive and the Constitution does not grant the President the power to either make laws or amend them on his own. Barack Hussein Obama has ignored these provisions and made or changed laws by either issuing unconstitutional executive orders or instructing governmental departments to take illegal and unconstitutional actions. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A. Ordering the Environmental Protection Agency to implement portions of the Cap & Trade bill that failed to pass in the U.S. Senate.
B. Ordering implementation of portions of the “Dream Act” that failed to pass in Congress.
C. Orchestrating a government takeover of a major part of the automobile industry in 2009.
D. Ordering a moratorium on new offshore oil and gas exploration and production without approval of Congress.
E. Signing an Executive Order on March 16, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch extraordinary powers to control and allocate resources such as food, water, energy and health care resources etc. in the interest of vaguely defined national defense issues. It would amount to a complete government takeover of the U.S. economy.
F. Signing an Executive Order on July 6, 2012 giving himself and the Executive branch the power to control all methods of communications in the United States based on a Presidential declaration of a national emergency.
G. Signing an Executive Order on January 6, 2013 that contained 23 actions designed to limit the individual right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the Constitution.
H. Amending portions of the Affordable Healthcare Act and other laws passed by Congress without Congressional approval as required by Article 1 of the Constitution.
Article II

(1) Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution mandates that from time to time the President “shall give to Congress information on the State of the Union….” Implicit in this is an obligation for the President to be truthful with the Congress and the American people. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office and the requirements of the Constitution by willfully withholding information on important issues or actively taken part in misleading the Congress and the American people. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A. Using Executive privilege to block Congress from getting documents relating to the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious and the death of U.S. Border Patrol Brian Terry.
B. Had members of his administration provide false information about the act of terrorism committed in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012 and refusing to allow the State Department and other federal agencies to cooperate in the Congressional investigation.
C. Falsely labeled the mass murder of American soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas as “workplace violence” instead of the act of Islamic terrorism it was.
D. Falsely labeling the IRS targeting of conservative and Christian groups as a “phony” scandal and refusing to order an active pursuit of the investigation into who was ultimately responsible.
E. Refusing to order an independent investigation of the actions of Eric Holder and the DOJ in targeting the phone records of members of the news media.
F. Telling the American people on a television show that the NSA was not prying into the emails and phone calls of Americans when the facts prove otherwise

(2) The oath of office of the President of the United States requires him to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. This obviously includes what may be the most important part of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights. Barack Hussein Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office by seeking to limit both the individual rights and the rights of the States guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A. Having the Department of Health and Human Services order religious institutions and businesses owned by religious families to provide their employees free contraception and other services that are contrary to their religious beliefs. This is being done under the auspices of the Affordable Health Care Act and violates the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment. 
B. Having the military place restrictions on the religious freedom of Chaplains and other members of the military in order to favor gay rights advocates and atheists in violation of the First Amendment.
C. Having the military place restrictions on the freedom of speech of members of the military and the civilian employees of the DOD in violation of their rights under the First Amendment.
D. Using Executive orders and government agency actions to limit Second Amendment rights. This includes actions by the Veterans Administration to disarm American veterans without due process as required by the Fifth Amendment.
E. Having the National Security Agency intercept and monitor the private communications of millions of Americans without a court order and in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
F. Joining with foreign governments in lawsuits against sovereign U.S. states to prohibit them from enforcing immigration laws. This is in violation of the Tenth Amendment.
G. Filing suits under the Voting Rights Act against sovereign U.S. states to prevent them from enforcing Voter ID laws despite rulings by the Supreme Court upholding these laws. This is another violation of the Tenth Amendment and the balance of powers.
(3) Under Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the United States military and as such is responsible for using them in a manner that best serves the national security of the United States and protects our soldiers from unnecessary risks and harm. Barack Hussein Obama has violated his oath of office in this regard. Specific actions include, but are not necessarily limited to:

A. In the name of “political correctness,” he imposed unnecessary and dangerous rules of engagement on our troops in combat causing them to lose offensive and defensive capabilities and putting them in danger. Many American service personnel have been killed or wounded as a result of this policy.
B. Releasing the identity of American military personnel and units engaged in dangerous and secret operations such as the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy Seal team 6.
C. Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Yet, without consulting Congress President Obama ordered the American military into action in Libya.
In all of this, Barack Hussein Obama has undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, Barack Hussein Obama, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.

Written by Michael Connelly, Constitutional Attorney

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I have prepared these formal Articles of Impeachment as a Constitutional lawyer. They are in proper legal form and I believe all allegations are provable. They will be sent to Congress with annotations.

H/T  Jack WV


Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 29, 2013

by Pamela Geller
August 29, 2013

One thing  has become painfully clear in Obama's Syrian misadventure: he is a laughingstock. Barack Hussein Obama is not respected throughout the world. The Russians kicked his sorry ass to the curb.
He can't go to the UN because he won't get the vote.
Bush went to the UN. Bush got the vote.
George W. Bush assembled 30 countries that backed him -- the "Coalition of the Willing." But Obama can't get our closest ally to stand with him.
The UK parliament rejected the US/UK alliance -- more of Obama's magic. And it is now being reported that the Obama administration falsified intel on Syria's chemical weapons attack.
LONDON—British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a preliminary vote on Syria, an early sign of the pushback Western governments may face as they prepare to launch an attack.
Thursday evening's vote was nonbinding, but in practice the rejection of military strikes means Mr. Cameron's hands are tied. In a terse statement to Parliament, Mr. Cameron said it was clear to him that the British people did not want to see military action.
Facing vocal opposition from politicians and the public, Mr. Cameron had told parliament earlier that military action was justified on humanitarian grounds and the need to prevent the use of chemical weapons in Syria. He said the case for action wasn't about taking sides in the Syrian conflict or about changing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
Obama won't go to Congress because his own country won't support him. And the Daily Caller is reporting that the White House falsified intelligence on Syria.
The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.
The doctored report was leaked to a private Internet-based newsletter that boasts of close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, and led to news reports that the United States now had firm evidence showing that the Syrian government had ordered the chemical weapons attack on August 21 against a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus.

The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV  on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable  in Washington, DC.
According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.
However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff, shows just the opposite.
The general staff officer asked the major if he was responsible for the chemical weapons attack. From the tone of the conversation, it was clear that “the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions,” the former officers say.
According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.

Read the rest

Syria: Obama's Pretext for War?

Americans Stand with Israel
by Bee Sting
August 29, 2013

There are numerous Essays, Commentaries and "Breaking" news reports  running today on Syria and the potential threat of an attack as soon as Friday or Saturday and, there just aren't enough hours in a day to post all of them.  Therefore, I've decided to share a few links of some of the most important updates at the moment (of course this changes hourly).
1. 98 Republicans, 18 Dem Congressmen Sign Letter Warning Unilateral Syria Attack is a WPA Violation
3. Upping the ante: The CIA and Special Operation Forces from Qatar and Pakistan Orchestrating the War in Syria

Syria: Obama’s Pretext for War? The “Rebels” are in Possession of Chemical Weapons

syrian rebels cia
By Phil Greaves     August 29, 2013
It seems many have forgotten the last two and a half years of western sabre-rattling and covert military aggression against the Syrian state. It is worth reiterating that without the vast amount of military, financial, and diplomatic largesse the west and their regional clients have thrown at the “revolutionary rebels” in Syria – who have now beyond doubt been exposed as sectarian extremists, lead and dominated by Al Qaeda ideologues – the violent insurgency in Syria would have been defeated long ago by the Syrian army.
These extremist-dominated “rebels” were armed and funded by Syria’s enemies – with the tacit approval and coordination of the west – from an early stage in the supposed “Syrian uprising” (read: local protests), to wage a sectarian insurgency upon the Syrian state and its security apparatus on behalf of the US and its various allies.
The US-led military and intelligence alliance comprises of: the United States, Israel, United Kingdom, France, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, aswell as numerous Lebanese political and paramilitary factions under the influence of Saudi Arabia. Although individual relationships and objectives have been in flux between this group, elements within all their respective establishments; governments; intelligence agencies; wealthy private donors and military contractors have worked to facilitate the transfer of arms and militants into Syria since the onset of the insurgency in March/April 2011. Although their individual desired outcomes and long-term objectives may differ; this alliance has held one common objective throughout: the destruction of an independent Syrian state.
 The pathetic attempt at media “debate” surrounding Obama’s imminent plan to bomb Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack – which morphed from a couple of hours of feigning scepticism straight into accepting unsubstantiated western allegations as fact, and then repeating them verbatim – all have one common theme: that of a reluctant Obama, unwilling to sacrifice “boots on the ground” and desperate to avert wider regional conflict in another endless war in the Middle East. Yet, upon analysing the conflict from a realistic perspective – which was from the onset, a sectarian, foreign-funded insurgency – as opposed to the corporate-media, and western politician’s manufactured fantasy-narrative of a “democratic grass-roots uprising” – it becomes clear that the reluctant facade of Obama has also been manufactured from false media narratives – propagated by the government “sources” that shape them. In contrast to Obama’s apparent reluctance to exacerbate the Syrian crisis; at every periodic occasion that the Syrian opposition have had setbacks – be it on the battlefield; diplomatic theatre; or within public opinion – the US has stepped up its covert militarism with its partners operating on Syria’s borders. For example, we now know that when the much-desired No Fly Zone was blocked by China and Russia in the UNSC the White House made efforts to step up its covert support to the “rebels” through the CIA and Qatar, transitting the shipments through the Turkish/Syrian border. Accordingly, with the increase of militarism; came the increase of death-toll and displacement.
 With regard to the early demands for a sovereign states’ President to “step aside”; westerners must first ask ourselves: do any world leaders demand Obama, Cameron, Bush, Blair, or any other variety of western diplomatic mass-murderer “step aside” for killing possibly millions of innocent civilians of countless nations? Or does the “International Community” only frown upon dictators allegedly “killing their own people” with “Weapons of Mass Destruction”? Is this the moral bar for western society as a whole? “Our leaders” can be proven to kill vast numbers in illegal wars anywhere on earth with impunity, but those “our leaders” deem enemies cannot defend allegations, let alone defend their nation from a foreign-funded insurgency?
Even if one finds this repugnant, hypocritical state of affairs as agreeable; how do Obama and Cameron explain their lack of condemnation toward Egypt’s coup-leaders; killing up to a thousand people from mainly peaceful protests in the space of a few days? One suspects any real condemnation of the military coup and subsequent crackdown (justified or not) will only come from the “moral” leaders of the west when and if Sisi and his feloul cohorts decide to cut-off the US’ vital “interests” in Egypt; those “interests” being primarily the protection of Israel; unfettered access (control) of the Suez Canal, and a continuation of the long-standing US-dominant military relationship and billion-dollar contracts. Those US “interests” do not include the lives, much less the “freedom” or “democracy” of the Egyptian people.
 Furthermore, how do Obama and Cameron explain their silence or complete lack of “action” regarding their close ally the Al-Khalifa monarchy’s brutal crackdown of protesters and dissidents in Bahrain over the last two years? Of course, the United States does not need regime change from a compliant monarchy in Bahrain that dutifully host its fifth-fleet in one of the world’s most strategic locations. Further still, where is the “moral outrage” regarding Saudi Arabia’s brutal regime and its decades-long sponsorship of terrorism? The Saudi type of terrorism is often purported in the west as in “our interest”. Saudi-sponsored terrorism comes only in the name of supporting “freedom fighters” who at the time may just so happen to be enemies of our enemies, who are then dutifully facilitated, fomented and sponsored by the west; inevitably resulting in small instances of blowback that provide the western security establishment further pretext to encroach upon civil liberties with draconian and over-expansive “anti-terror” laws – a win-win for the National Security State and the Military Industrial Complex.
The west’s proxy-forces in Syria are, in reality, close to defeat. Against the odds, and a considerable multi-national effort to destroy an army and divide a nation; Assad has solidified his core base and territories. In the last few months the Syrian army has made considerable gains on the battlefield, recapturing strategic choke-points along the rebel supply route and utilising its bolstered numbers from the National Defense Forces to protect regained territory. Assad has also maintained his own critical supply lines, both of a military and diplomatic nature and has upheld his side of whatever bargains he has made with international allies. Russia has remained steadfast in its support of Assad up to the point of writing, but this may yet change in the face of a possible world war III scenario.
Russia’s military supplies have been critical to the Syrian army’s success on the battlefield, and its diplomatic efforts in the UN have stalled what has been a determined effort by the west to gain a pretext for military intervention. Moreover, anti-rebel sentiment has been on the rise in Syria for months. An example lies in the border town of Tal Kalakh, which was recently peacefully transferred to army control; not out of any particular love for Assad I must add, but simply due to the fact the extremists had moved on and the locals were more inclined to keep their livelihood and live in peace than face death or imprisonment. In a recent interview Assad also highlighted an increase in defections from the rebels back to the army as a result of government amnesty’s This, and an and added impetus from the Hezbollah-aided victory of Qusair had set the army on a trajectory that would be difficult to stop without massive foreign intervention.
On the other hand, the disparate factions of Bin-Ladenite “rebels” have been bogged down with infighting and internal conflict, which has resulted in a further increase of their brutality toward the civilian population. Just this week the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS) executed three Alawite truck drivers on video for the crime of forgetting prayer ritual. A prominent Alawite cleric was also recently executed by “rebels”, the latest in a long line of clerics and religious fficials that have been targeted by the extremists.
The cleric was kidnapped during the ISIS/JaN sectarian onslaught in Latakia; the mass graves that were found as a result of this particular sectarian assault on a civilian area didn’t merit much attention in the western press. Moreover, recent rebel attacks – predominantly ISIS and jabhat al Nusra – on the Kurdish community in the north have taken on a broader and intractable dimension; resulting in the mass exodus of 30,000 Kurds over the border to Iraqi Kurdistan. In relation to the north of Syria where jihadist groups are most dominant; ISIS recently released a message to all international aid organisations to leave the region or be killed. Accordingly, the “rebels” public appeal is arguably at an all-time low. Several defining events throughout the course of the conflict have been imprinted on the minds of millions of people across the globe. From children being forced to behead prisoners; to rebels – from the supposed “moderate western-backed” militants no less – eating the organs of slain Syrian soldiers.
 There is little sympathy in the west for the militants western governments support. A recent Reuters poll showed only 9 percent of Americans support any form of US military intervention in Syria. Even if the Assad government were found to be guilty of using chemical weapons that figure only rose to 25% percent. With a resounding 60% percent against. These figures are almost mirrored in the UK and have reflected such opinion throughout the Syrian conflict. Yet if military intervention was to occur, it would undoubtedly be the UK and the US at the forefront of the attacks: that is western “democracy”.
 President Assad and the Syrian establishment have long known that they have been on the US’ target list. Indeed, it was public knowledge in the west that during the post-9/11 Bush administration Syria was placed under “the axis of Evil”. During that decade several prominent reports highlighted covert policies the US and its allies were directing at Syria. These covert policies ran parallel toUSAID “democracy” programs that the US had implemented in Syria in order to bolster opposition elements and leverage the Assad government – as is the protocol for US subversion.
Many of these same initiatives have formed a part of the US State Department-trained anti-Assad “activists”, so prevalent on social media and often touted as objective sources in the western corporate press. More importantly, Assad has also known for a long time that any use of chemical weapons would undoubtedly result in the west – at the very least – abandoning any pretense of negotiations and reverting to type: the military option. Why would Assad choose now to entice a western military intervention? What can he possibly gain from his own certain downfall? At a time when it was becoming more and more likely that the Assad government would hold on to some sort of power in Syria and the “rebels” and their international alliance were looking increasingly likely to fall apart, why would Assad choose to use chemical weapons? Not only that, we must also remember that the UN team is in Damascus at the Syrian governments request, it simply defies logic that Assad would willingly commit such a grave act right under the nose of the UN, particularly when the trajectory of the war was firmly in his favour?
 Conversely, there are multiple logical scenarios in which the “rebels” would benefit from staging a chemical weapons attack. This is plain objective common sense. Since Obama declared his famous “red-line” it has been a casus belli waiting to happen. The “rebels”, and their many international backers, intelligence agencies and private contractors are all in the knowledge that a chemical weapons attack will incur a western military response, resulting in their desired objective: the removal of Assad.
“Rebels” in Possession of WMD
There is already a strong case being made that the “rebels” have deployed a form of sarin in a home-made shell fired on government forces in Khan al-Assal. Russia has provided the UN with evidence to this effect and Khan al-Assal was one of the sites on the list to be visited by the UN inspection team. Moreover, in May this year UN investigator Carla Del Ponte pointed the finger at the “rebels” for the use of chemical weapons, a fact that has been thoroughly whitewashed in both western media and from the duplicitous mouths of western diplomats – who still claim that “rebels” don’t have the capability to launch chemical weapons. Contrary to western diplomats hollow claims; in late May militant cells with links to Jabhat al Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham were found in both Iraq and Turkey with sarin and other chemical weapons materiel in their possession – another fact that received only light attention in western media, and has been virtually ignored in any western diplomats talking points.
 Framed in the above context, and with the “evidence” – or glaring lack of it – to date to prove the US’ assertions; it cannot be logically, or honestly implied that the Syrian military has used chemical weapons – or has any intention to, knowing it would be certain suicide. Thus, one can only logically draw the assumption that this latest alleged CW attack is a repeat of previous attempts to incite western intervention, but on a much larger and deadlier scale. It could have any number of culprits, but the Syrian government is possibly the least likely. Yet the United States (arbiter of the world) has dismissed such notions on the premise that the “rebels” don’t have the capability: the United States is quite literally overruling UN investigators in order to carry out regime change to meet its own geopolitical objectives (again).
 The clearest signal of this intention came when several members of the Obama administration intentionally misled reporters and stated several times that the Syrian government blocked an immediate investigation into the recent alleged CW attack in Ghouta. This was a blatant lie and the US knew it; it was in fact the UN that held up the investigation through fear for their own safety in a what was a contested area. The Syrian government gave its immediate blessing for an investigation and escorted the UN team to the site for a short time; at which point it was fired upon by unknown snipers and retreated to the safety of an army checkpoint. Another clear indicator of Obama’s aggressive intention is the blatant double-standard being applied; the UN team is inside Syria to specifically investigate alleged CW attacks that occurred 5 months ago, and presumably the US would have accepted its findings.
Not only this, but the UN team does not have a mandate to determine the source of chemical weapons use – only to determine whether they have been used or not. Yet the UN team has been granted access to an alleged CW attack site by the Syrian government only 5 days after the alleged event, and the Obama administration is claiming that any results from the investigation are now “too late to be credible”?
 Now why would the Obama administration lie? I thought they were reluctant for war?
Phil Greaves is a UK based writer/analyst, focusing on UK/US Foreign Policy and conflict analysis in the Middle East post WWII.