CLASSIFIED 083013

U.S. Government Assessment Of Bashar al-Assad Chemical Weapons: Complete Report

Will the United States go to war with Syria? The crux of the debate centers on whether the Bashar al-Assad regime in Syria has used chemical weapons against the civilian population, and whether the U.S. should act to police Assad by punishing him for using said chemical weapons.
Still, there has been no smoking gun, no conclusive evidence that Assad has indeed used these weapons of mass destruction. Without direct proof, “who dunnit” remains an open question that has separated the international community and stalled true multi-lateral action against Assad. In a pointed example, on Thursday, UK Prime Minister David Cameron admitted that there is no unquestionable evidence about who carried out the most deadly chemical attack of the war. Further, the UN mission, headed by Carla del Ponte, whose aim is to determine the use of chemical weapons, but not who launched them, is finding contradictory evidence that the opposition has also employed the use of sarin gas.
The U.S. government on Friday released their assessment of the chemical weapons situation. The report pins the blame on the Assad regime and seems to be the clearest sign yet that the White House is preparing for war with Syria.
Here is the statement:
Read more....


Meet the Military Forces Gathering on Syria's Doorstep

While the United States is ready to strike a handful of targets on the ground in Syria, any international conflict there will take place on a much larger stage. The entire region is full of a witches' brew of military hardware from more than half a dozen nations with interests in the Syrian conflict.

The United States and France are prepared to strike the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from the Mediterranean Sea and a ring of air bases surrounding Syria. Meanwhile, three of America's most powerful military allies -- Britain, Turkey, and Israel -- are publicly staying on the sidelines, albeit with their militaries primed to defend against any Syrian counterattack. Then there are Assad's friends, Russia and Iran, both of which have military personnel on the ground in Syria.

Here's a look at the mix of military forces facing Assad -- and each other -- in and around the Levant.

The United States already has Syria ringed with Patriot missile batteries in Jordan and Turkey and has four Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers parked in the eastern Mediterranean Sea. This little fleet is likely armed with a mix of Tomahawk cruise missiles to attack ground targets in Syria and surface-to-air missiles capable of defending the ships from attempts to attack them by air.

If U.S. President Barack Obama does decide to fire a warning shot -- as he has described any U.S. military action there -- at Assad, these ships and their Tomahawks will likely play a major role.

In addition to the four destroyers, the United States may well have one of its four guided missile submarines prowling the waters near Syria. These subs used to carry massive Trident nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles. Over the last decade they saw their nuclear payloads removed and refitted to carry up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles in 22 of their 24 giant missile tubes. This class of ships saw its combat debut during the 2011 campaign to oust former Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi when the USS Florida fired more than 90 Tomahawks at targets in Libya. 

Obama has power, determination to make own decision on Syria, administration says

The administration insisted Thursday that President Obama has both the authority and the determination to make his own decision on a military strike against Syria, even as a growing chorus of lawmakers demanded an opportunity to vote on the issue and Britain, the United States’ closest ally, appeared unlikely to participate.

Britain’s sudden withdrawal came after Prime Minister David Cameron, deserted by rebels in his own Conservative Party, lost a parliamentary vote for provisional authorization for military action in Syria.

Flashback: Biden threatened Bush with impeachment over unauthorized military strikes

The Obama administration seems bent on getting the U.S. involved in yet another Middle-Eastern conflict, and appears willing to so so without Congressional approval.

But Mediaite reminds us that not too long ago, then-Senator Joe Biden threatened George W. Bush with impeachment if he engaged in military action without going to Congress first.
“The reason I made the comment was as a warning. I don’t say those things lightly, Chris. you’ve known me for a long time. I was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for 17 years. I teach separation of powers in constitutional law. This is something I know. So I brought a group of constitutional scholars together to write a piece that I’m going to deliver to the whole United States Senate pointing out that the president has no constitutional authority to take this country to war against a country of 70 million people unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof that we are about to be attacked. And if he does, I would move to impeach him. The House obviously has to do that, but I would lead an effort to impeach him,” Biden told MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2007.

Revealed: Obama Planned Attack On Syria In 2011

Just like George W. Bush planned on taking down Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein before 9/11, Barack Hussein Obama planned on taking down Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad before the so-called Syrian civil war began.

In a hacked email from intelligence giant Stratfor dated December 7, 2011, Pentagon officials are described as planning the toppling of the Syrian government before the civil war even began! This was just months after the war with Libya, in which Barack Obama illegally went to war with Muammar Gaddafi, failing to get approval from Congress, installing a regime now mainly made up of al-Qaeda.
There is no “civil war” in Syria, per se. True, some of the “rebels” are actually made up of Syrian citizens—most formerly destitute, most driven into war to provide for their families—but the majority are al-Qaeda mercenaries shipped in from Iraq, Libya, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, trained and armed by our own black ops special forces.  This is no secret. The “rebels” openly march around the streets with U.S.-supplied weapons flying the al-Qaeda flag, singing the praises of Osama Bin Laden.
In fact, yesterday, after Obama all but declared he was going to attack Syria, the Drudge Report headline screamed: “DOES OBAMA KNOW HE’S FIGHTING ON AL-QAEDA’S SIDE?”
The answer: Yes, he does. He’s known it for almost three years. Remember Obama during the election: “Al-Qaeda is on the run!” Yes, Al-Qaeda is on the run. They’ve run right into Syria!
Obama knew it was al-Qaeda when he used Benghazi as a CIA hub to ship them hundreds—if not thousands—of shoulder-fired missiles, able to shoot down a commercial airliner. Apparently, the CIA wasn’t shipping the missiles fast enough, so al-Qaeda stole 400 missiles out of the CIA annex on September 11, 2012.  That’s why we’ll never get a straight answer about Benghazi. That’s why there was the ridiculous story about an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

Report: Assad bombs school with napalm

Incendiary bomb kills 10, wounds dozens near Aleppo, BBC reports. Wounded suffer severe burns. Meanwhile, US survey shows Americans think Obama needs Congress' green-light to go to Syria

Citizens from the area of the city of Aleppo in northern Syria, suffering from burns most likely caused by a incendiary bomb similar to napalm, were shown on Friday on a BBC network broadcast.

According to the report, 10 were killed and many more injured in a bombing on a school.
The broadcast shows a man, identified as a teacher in the bombed school, suffering from burns in most of his body. 


The plane bombed a residential area in Orum a-Kubra," he said. "We tried to evacuate quickly, but it appears that fate had the upper hand today."

"The students gathered in one place, and then the plane got us," he added.

Breaking news: Rebels admit gas attack result of mishandling chemical weapons

In a report that is sure to be considered blockbuster news, the rebels have told an AP reporter, they are responsible for the chemical attack last week.
The story is from AP reporter and Middle Eastern journalist Dale Gavlak and appears on the Mint Press News, which is affiliated with AP.
This news should deflate the accusations, against the Assad regime, coming from the U.S., Britain, and France as well as the Arab League.
Since the chemical attacks last week, the Assad government was immediately blamed. On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry said: That Assad’s guilt was “a judgment already clear to the world," according to theguardian.com.
As a result of Assad's government being blamed for the chemical attacks, five U.S. warships are now stationed off Syria's coast. These destroyers are poised to deliver cruise missiles in a strike that is due to begin any time now. According to the report on Mint Press there have been several interviews conducted with people in Damascus and Ghouta, a suburb of the Syrian capital.
The interviews conducted of residents, rebels and their families in Damascus and Ghouta are painting a different picture of what actually happened. Many believe that rebels received chemical weapons provided through the Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. It's being reported that these weapons are responsible for last week's gas attack.
The father of a rebel who was killed in what's now being called an accident by many in Ghouta and Damascus said: "My son came to me two weeks ago asking what I thought the weapons were that he had been asked to carry,” said Abu Abdel-Moneim. The father said at least 12 rebels including his son were killed by the chemical weapons.

Patton: Middle East Mess May Be Exactly What Obama Wants

Barack Hussein Obama is either the most inept president ever to sit in the White House or he is an enemy of the Republic. He could be both, but I defy anyone to suggest a logical third alternative.

For the last ten years, I have watched this man’s uncanny rise to the pinnacle of power and vacillated between those two choices. His inexperience suggested the former, but his ideology made me wonder what he would do when the international chips were down. I have come to the conclusion that ideology trumps inexperience. His ego is so massive, and his leftist beliefs and Muslim upbringing are so strong, that he is willing to throw our country as we have known it — not to mention any inconvenient allies — under the big international bus.
Let’s review our Middle East policy since Obama took office in January 2009. He made it his top priority to go to the region and prostrate himself before the Islamic world, bowing before Saudi sheiks and telling outrageous lies about the great and glorious history of a religion rooted in 7th Century barbarism in his now-infamous speech in Cairo.
Since then, he has unilaterally withdrawn from Iraq while perpetuating a semi-war in Afghanistan that is doing nothing but getting our troops killed a few at a time.
And, of course, he has proceeded to do everything in his power to place as many crazy Muslim zealots in power as he possible can.

Little Britain: The mouse that (finally) roared

......... As Cameron woke up on Friday morning, the UK newspaper headlines were a little different, however.
The prime minister’s best-laid plans, urging military intervention on his senior partner in the White House, lay in ruins: All but destroyed by a vote in the British parliament, where MPs voted 285-272 against Cameron’s proposal for military action against Assad for using chemical weapons. While the vote was cited by Cameron as not a final approval, it certainly would have prepared the ground for military intervention after a follow-up vote next week.

The newspapers opposing Cameron’s Conservative-Liberal coalition were bad enough. The Labour-supporting Daily Mirror sneered: “We don’t want your war,” while The Guardian wrote: “MPs force Cameron to rule out war with Syria.” 

Iran's Top General  Israel Faces Certain & Imminent Destruction If U.S. Attacks Syria

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards chief said a US military attack on Syria would lead to the “imminent destruction” of Israel and would prove a “second Vietnam” for America, according to an Iranian news agency.

Shiite Muslim Iran, an arch-enemy of Israel, is supporting Syrian President Bashar Assad against mainly Sunni Muslim rebels trying to oust him in a two-and-a-half-year-old revolt.

Iran has blamed the rebels for a suspected chemical weapons on August 21 that killed hundreds of civilians. Opposition activists blame Assad’s forces, Washington has agreed and President Barack Obama made the case for a limited military strike against Syria in response to the chemical attack.

Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran’s powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, said in an interview late on Wednesday with the Tasnim news agency that a U.S. strike on Syria would not help Israel.

“An attack on Syria will mean the imminent destruction of Israel,” Jafari said, according to Tasnim. 

A SYRIAS MISTAKE: 25 QUOTES About The Coming War with Syria Every American Should See

If the American people are going to stop this war, they need to do it now. The following are 25 quotes about the coming war with Syria that every American should see… 

1. Barack Obama, during an interview with Charlie Savage on December 20, 2007: “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.” 

2. Joe Biden, during a television interview in 2007: “The president has no constitutional authority … to take this nation to war … unless we’re attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him.” 

3. U.S. Representative Ted Poe: “Mr. President, you must call Congress back from recess immediately to take a vote on a military strike on Syria. Assad may have crossed a red line but that does not give you the authority to redline the Constitution.” 

4. U.S. Representative Kurt Schrader: “I see no convincing evidence that this is an imminent threat to the United States of America.” 

5. U.S. Representative Barbara Lee: “While we understand that as commander-in-chief you have a constitutional obligation to protect our national interests from direct attack, Congress has the constitutional obligation and power to approve military force, even if the United States or its direct interests (such as its embassies) have not been attacked or threatened with an attack.”
Read more