WebProNews

Tag: Syria

  • John McCain’s Op-Ed Appears on Pravda.ru

    John McCain’s Op-Ed Appears on Pravda.ru

    Last weekend, John McCain made it clear he intended to write a counterpoint to Vladimir Putin’s viral NYT column, and that he wanted that piece published by Pravda.

    The internet teased McCain because of his outdated worldview (let’s face it: his worldview is an easy target), but the truth is that McCain really had no idea who he was writing his column for.

    Before exploring the dichotomy of dueling Pravda‘s, we ought to explore McCain’s column, which boldly claims that he is “pro-Russian, more pro-Russian than the regime that misrules you today.” Besides the typical chest-thumping of American values (“I make that claim because I believe the Russian people, no less than Americans, are endowed by our Creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”), McCain attacks Putin for his human rights record, a lackluster social justice agenda with regard to gay rights, and journalistic suppression.

    Near the end of his column, McCain boldly states that Russia’s international status has been strengthened only by alliance with “offensive and threatening tyrannies” and that Putin has turned Russia against “nations that seek to build a safer, more peaceful and prosperous world.”

    CNN notes a tinge of hypocrisy emanating from McCain’s piece regarding Russia’s anti-gay legislation, since McCain vehemently opposes same-sex marriage in the United States.

    John McCain was hoping from the moment he read Putin’s op-ed that he would be writing for this Pravda, the one that represented the propagandized voice of the only party in Soviet Russia. That newspaper was closed with the Iron Curtain, and when Pravda was reopened in 1997 as the official paper of the Russian Communist party, its circulation was markedly lower than the Soviet days. Pravda.ru, which published his column, has existed since 1999 as an electronic news website. McCain, not knowing which Pravda was the official successor, submitted the op-ed to both. Only Pravda.ru would publish the column.

    McCain had hoped that one Pravda or the other would have a viewership similar to that of the Soviet-era Pravda. Unfortunately for McCain, much like the American media, the Russian media has a brand new face for a brave new world.

    If you want to read a column from the chairman of Pravda.ru explaining the succession of the Pravda name, check it out here.

    If you want to check out McCain’s column, you can read it in English for yourself here.

    [Image via Pravda.ru]

  • UN Inspectors’ Report Suggests Damascus to Blame

    The United Nations released its report on the chemical weapons attack that killed masses of civilians in Syria on 21 August and while the conclusions are not definitive in assigning blame, the report suggests the complicity of the Syrian government. The report confirmed that the attack was conducted with chemical arms. The report also included details on the particulars of the munitions used and the exact direction from which two originated. The combination of these details leads to a strong suggestion that Syrian President Bashar al-Asad’s protestations—that anti-regime rebels, not his government—are likely misleading.

    While many nations, including the US, have conducted their own investigations with results that appeared weeks ago, this investigation, commissioned by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, is the first independent, on-the-ground, scientific review of the attacks outside the Syrian capital.

    Western policy makers are capitalizing on the report to support their own investigations, just as Russian diplomats continue to press for more proof. Russian ambassador to the UN, Vitaly I. Churkin, in questioning the implications of the report, stated, “We need not jump to any conclusions.”

    “We understand some countries did not accept on faith that the samples of blood and hair that the United States received from people affected by the August 21 attack contained sarin,” US ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power said while pointing out that the UN probe came to the same conclusion. The statement of the British ambassador to the UN, Sir Mark Lyall Grant, said that the report erased all remaining doubts that Damascus initiated the attacks. Alexis Lamek, France’s deputy envoy to the UN echoed the remarks, pointing to the weapons’ directionality as using, “great precision,” by the Asad regime.

    The Secretary General said, “The report makes for chilling reading… The findings are beyond doubt and beyond the pale. This is a war crime.” He skirted assigning blame and instead conveyed his hope that the attacks themselves would prompt a new diplomatic decision at the UN to resolve the Syria conflict.

    By now, much of the political turmoil over the attacks, how best to respond and the deal struck for Syria to turn over chemical weapons stores has already been played out in Act I of the saga. Syria has so far made no response to the UN results. Damascus officially agreed to join the international convention on banning chemical weapons, and has agreed to plans for the US and Russia to withdraw the weapons as identified by the middle of 2014.

    The final conclusion of Monday’s report is that, “chemical weapons have been used in the ongoing conflict between the parties in the Syrian Arab Republic, also against civilians, including children, on a relatively large scale,” citing the large quantity of evidence removed from the location, “samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used.”

    The report further details the tactics used in the attack, such as taking advantage of temperatures that day to ensure the sarin gas would stay closer to the ground where people would be most likely to shelter. UN inspectors were even fired upon just days after the attack, while collecting the samples that would support the report’s conclusions, as reported in this broadcast from 26 August.

    [Image via United Nations official website. Video via YouTube.]

  • John McCain: I’ll Reply to Putin’s NYT Op-Ed in Pravda

    For the first time in history, one world leader will respond to another world leader via newspaper columns in their respective nations and languages. Vladimir Putin penned a NYT column last week that discussed U.S. foreign policy with regard to a forthcoming attack on Syria. That column incensed many readers, and some Twitter reactions labeled Putin a “concern troll” who’s now “doing donuts in Obama’s front yard.”

    Following open criticism of the diplomatically-arranged plan by Russia and the United States to deprive Syria of its chemical weapons arsenal, John McCain now stands ready to toss his hat into the ring after he jokingly suggested to CNN that he’d “love to have a commentary in Pravda.”

    Things became interesting when the English language editor of Pravda, Dmitry Sudakov, told Josh Hudson at Foreign Policy’s The Cable that John McCain is more than welcome to write for the Russian paper, which has moved online: “Mr. McCain has been an active anti-Russian politician for many years already. We have been critical of his stance on Russia and international politics in our materials, but we would be only pleased to publish a story penned by such a prominent politician as John McCain.”

    At this point, Slate questioned whether or not McCain knew which Pravda he would be writing for: the Pravda that represented the official mouthpiece of the Soviet Russian government (which no longer exists), or the Pravda as it exists today, which Slate author Josh Keating describes as “a frequently updated and highly-entertaining tabloid, publishing in both English and Russian, whose content is a kind of cross between WorldNetDaily and the National Enquirer.”

    Slate collected a few interesting examples of the modern day Pravda, which included an op-ed about the 2012 presidential election that equated electing Mitt Romney with “appointing a serial paedophile as a kindergarten teacher, a rapist as a janitor at a girls’ dormitory or a psychopath with a fixation on knives as a kitchen hand.”

    As ridiculous as it sounds, when The Cable talked to McCain’s communications director Brian Rogers, he told them on the record that “Senator McCain would be glad to write something for Pravda, so we’ll be reaching out to Dmitry with a submission.” Sudakov was thrilled at the news, and intends to have McCain’s column “published in English and then translated into Russian so that all our Russian readers could read what Mr. McCain has to say.”

    [Image via a CNN video on YouTube about the political jousting between Russia and the United States]

  • US and Russia Reach Agreement on Syria

    US and Russia Reach Agreement on Syria

    The New York times reports in a breaking story that The US and Russia have finally come to an agreement, calling for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be destroyed or removed by the middle of 2014. The agreement states that international inspectors must be on the ground in Syria by November, John Kerry said, speaking at a news conference with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey V. Lavrov.

    In addition, Syria must submit a “comprehensive listing” of its chemical weapons stockpiles within a week. If President Bashar al-Assad of Syria fails to comply with the agreement, the issue will be referred to the United Nations Security Council.The joint announcement, which took place on the third day of intensive talks here, eased the United States’ confrontation with Syria.

    Mr. Kerry and Mr. Lavrov had a series of meetings on Friday, including a session that ended at midnight. On Saturday morning, the two sides reconvened with arms-controls experts on the hotel pool deck, sitting under a white umbrella drinking coffee as they pored over the text of the agreement.

    “If fully implemented,” Mr. Kerry said, “this framework can provide greater protection and security to the world.” American and Russian officials have also reached a consensus on the size of Syria’s stockpile, which is an essential prerequisite to any international plan to control and dismantle the weapons. An American official, who could not be identified under the diplomatic protocol established by the State Department, said that United States and Russia had agreed that Syria has 1,000 metric tons of chemical weapons, including Sarin and mustard gas.

    Mr. Kerry said that any violations would then be taken up under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, which authorizes punitive action. But Mr. Lavrov made clear that Russia, which wields a veto in the Security Council, had not withdrawn its objections to the use of force.

    The agreement is titied “Framework For Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons,” It is four pages, including technical annexes. The agreement, which outlines procedures for “expeditious destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons program and stringent verification,” says that the United States and Russia will submit a plan in the next several days to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which oversees compliance with the chemical weapons accord.

    Under the agreement, the initial inspection of the chemical weapons sites that the Syrian government declares must be completed by November, as well as the destruction of equipment for producing chemical weapons and for filling munitions with poison gas. The document also says that there is to be “complete elimination of all chemical weapons material and equipment in the first half of 2014.”

    The issue of removing Syria’s chemical arms surfaced on Monday when Mr. Kerry, at a news conference in London, posed the question as to whether Mr. Assad could rapidly be disarmed only to then turn around and state that he did not see how it could be done.

    “He could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week. Turn it over, all of it, without delay, and allow a full and total accounting for that,” Mr. Kerry said. “But he isn’t about to do it, and it can’t be done, obviously.”

    Before the news conference, Mr. Lavrov said that he had not spoken with Syrian officials while he was negotiating in Geneva. Obama administration officials say that Russia’s role was critical as it has been a major backer of the Assad government.

    Image Via Wikipedia Commons

  • David Petraeus Target of Protests at CUNY

    David Petraeus Target of Protests at CUNY

    The last time we heard from David Petraeus, he was resigning as director of the CIA due to his affair with his biographer Paula Broadwell. Since then, we haven’t heard much commotion from the scapegoat of US military actions in the Middle East. On September 11 (Funny how these things just happen, isn’t it?), however, a ruckus was raised outside the City University of New York (CUNY). What was the cause of said ruckus, you ask? Petraeus is currently serving as a visiting professor at CUNY, something which the Ad-Hoc Committee Against the Militarization of CUNY finds quite upsetting.

    Petraeus is currently teaching a once-per-week course at CUNY entitled “Are We On the Threshold of the North American Decade?”, a class which is focused on America’s public policy and how it affects our leadership role in the international economy. Why he is qualified to teach a course concerning American foreign relations and its impact on the economy is anyone’s guess. However, that is not the reasons students and professors are so upset. S. Sandor John, an assistant professor of Latin American History at CUNY, states that “A great many CUNY students’ families come from countries directly targeted by the death squads, military coups, drones, spying and mass bombing organized by the likes of Petraeus … and the U.S. military as a whole.” John is responsible for creating the Ad-Hoc group which heckled Petraeus as he left class Monday.

    This protest is not the result of impressionable college students being brainwashed by a popular professor, though. Eric Moreno, a linguistics major at CUNY, believes that “this will be a recurring thing.” Not only will the students continue to protest Petraeus’s teaching position, but Moreno also stated that “There are other students that are willing to go the extra step and wait for him after class and just make his time here in New York a living hell basically.”

    It’s a safe assumption to say that Petraeus is not the most popular person in America at the moment. He was the general in charge of the troop surge originally ordered by Bush in 2007 in Iraq, and he was also the main proponent and then executioner of the more recent troop surge in Afghanistan. And just one week ago, Petraeus also voiced support for President Obama’s plan for a limited military strike against Syria, stating that such action is necessary to ensure that Syria ceases their use of chemical weapons and to also show North Korea and Iran that the US will use force if necessary.

    Even if one believes Petraeus is the anti-Christ for his past actions, one has to wonder why the student reaction to his presence on campus is so nasty and vehement. Isn’t college supposed to be a bastion of critical thinking and discourse? Shouldn’t these students be taking this opportunity to ask Petraeus to defend his previous actions and to try to understand the minds behind our military in Washington? The reaction of the students at CUNY shows how far away from the ideals of the university our students have gone and reflect poorly upon our future generation of leaders.

    What do you think? Are the student protests an appropriate response to Petraeus’s appearance on campus? Answer in the Comments Section below.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Elizabeth O’Bagy Fired For Lying About Her PHD

    Elizabeth O’Bagy is probably not known to most people, unless you have been following the debate surrounding Syria very closely. O’Bagy, 26 years old, until recently was a senior analyst at the Institute For The Study of War in Washington. This would normally not get her noticed, but after the recent attacks in Syria using chemical weapons, she is suddenly an expert that many people have become familiar with.

    O’bagy has even spent a considerable amount of time with the rebels in Syria, being able to defend them in some cases. Everyone wants to know what she found out, becoming a hot commodity in recent weeks, states NPR. She immediately became a fixture on news programs, offering her take on the Syrian conflict including an interview on NPR’s morning edition on September 5. She also received some scrutiny for her close involvement with the Syrian rebels, but she responded on twitter telling her followers that she never intended to conceal her ties with rebel commanders and is not being paid to show her support for Syria.

    O’Bagy was recently fired for lying about earning a PHD from Georgetown, when in fact she had not. She recently had an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal and was cited by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain in congressional hearings about possibly intervening in Syria. After gaining the attention of a number of people and appearing on several of the major news networks, she has been let go as an analyst.

    Part of the debate over whether to intervene deals with finding out how many of the rebel groups are extremist and how many of them are moderate. O’Bagy says that extremists and moderates exercise control over particular parts of the country and checkpoints are set up in order to define territory. There are also distinct areas of control where moderate rebels are able to keep weapons out of the hands of the extremists. Why then, is the crisis happening?

    According to CNN, O’Bagy has appeared on several television networks including CNN, BBC, Fox and PBS. Last week, she was a guest on CNN Newsroom and Fox News to speak on Syria. She will no longer be appearing as an analyst for CNN networks after deceiving the American public.

    Image via Youtube

  • Putin Pens New York Times Op-Ed, Talks Foreign Policy

    The “bad boy” president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, has a message for the American people, and in a conveniently timed viral column that The New York Times published on September 11, Putin bypasses political pleasantries and gets right to business.

    “Recent events surrounding Syria have prompted me to speak directly to the American people and their political leaders. It is important to do so at a time of insufficient communication between our societies,” he begins, referring to the United States’ desires to see the Assad regime blown away for deploying sarin gas.

    Putin talked about the failure of the League of Nations followed by the founding of the United Nations, occurring in the wake of the world’s bloodiest wars to date: “No one wants the United Nations to suffer the fate of the League of Nations, which collapsed because it lacked real leverage. This is possible if influential countries bypass the United Nations and take military action without Security Council authorization.” The implication here is that the United States would be responsible for the collapse of both international efforts.

    Putin articulated his own frank opinions on the desires of the United States to strike Syria: “[Striking Syria] will result in more innocent victims and escalation, potentially spreading the conflict far beyond Syria’s borders. A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.”

    Putin also defended Russia’s role while simultaneously attacking U.S. wars on foreign soil: “From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law… No one doubts that poison gas was used in Syria. But there is every reason to believe it was used not by the Syrian Army… It is alarming that military intervention in internal conflicts in foreign countries has become commonplace for the United States. Is it in America’s long-term interest? I doubt it. Millions around the world increasingly see America not as a model of democracy but as relying solely on brute force, cobbling coalitions together under the slogan ‘you’re either with us or against us.’”

    As to the White House’s response, the BBC has reported White House spokesman Jay Carney saying that “the military is ready, and it is waiting for a certain period of time. it will not negatively affect their ability to inflict the kind of damage that we envision on Assad’s capabilities if that were to become necessary; we should pursue this diplomatic avenue and we are.”

    Politico quoted a senior administration official as adding that “President Putin has invested his credibility in transferring Assad’s chemical weapons to international control, and ultimately destroying them. The world will note whether Russia can follow through on that commitment.”

    The same BBC report followed up with a Free Syrian Army video, which expressed frustration at the Russian plan: “We ask that the international community not be content with withdrawing chemical weapons, which are a criminal instrument, but to hold the perpetrator accountable and prosecute him at the international criminal court. Removing criminal tools is one matter; holding the criminal accountable is another.”

    Wrapping up his piece, Putin said optimistically that “If we can avoid force against Syria, this will improve the atmosphere in international affairs and strengthen mutual trust. It will be our shared success and open the door to cooperation on other critical issues.”

    Read the full piece here.

    [Image via a YouTube interview of Vladimir Putin describing how the chemical weapons exchange plan came about]

  • Ann Coulter: Neocon bomb thrower thinks Obama is “Monkey”?

    Yesterday evening, the popular neoconservative commentator and author Ann Coulter felt impulsive enough to call Barack Obama a “monkey” who is apparently being danced around by Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    To put it mildly, Coulter is not new to controversy. Like a precision clock, she has the remarkable penchant for saying something so outrageous every month that you can almost bet your mortgage on it.

    If it weren’t for Coulter’s academic accomplishments – she is an alumnus of Cornell University and Michigan Law School – her wildly successful writing career, and vast knowledge base, one could almost write her off as a crackpot venting her spleen on live TV. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTxLfSw8Gvc

    But given the huge audience she commands through her columns, books and TV appearances, the shock value her comments represent cannot be taken lightly.

    Most of us who are aware of the dark history of slavery across the world, know that certain words and phrases carry an extraordinary degree of offensiveness to certain races or ethnic groups. The word “monkey” when used to describe a Black person, carries a special connotation which is deeply revolting to say the least.

    Outrageous as it may be, do such remarks serve Coulter’s political cause well? Her earlier twitter comment on Syria sounded vastly more normal compared to her TV shock-jock theatrics, where she made a valid point about American diplomacy and military involvement in Syria:

    Perhaps a more poignant assertion can be made here that the level of discourse across the political spectrum, from far right to far left, has taken the form of verbal twerking, where political points, viewership volume, and TV ratings are scored based on how much outrage, titillation and drool it can create.

    While the casualties in Syria are mounting to a level not seen since Iraq war, the Dollar is on life support thanks to endless wars, “free” trade, and inflationary printing, national debt is spiraling out of control, Medicaid is delivering half of all babies in America, the last thing we need is to distract America with yet another verbal “twerk” that causes gnashing of teeth, raised eyebrows, flurry of condemnations throughout social media, but little thoughtful debate, introspection and decision making.

    [image via wikipedia]

  • Sarah Palin Tweets “Bomb Obamacare”

    Sarah Palin Tweets “Bomb Obamacare”

    Former VP candidate and Alaska governor Sarah Palin is being criticized for a Tweet she posted on Monday. While all eyes are on President Obama’s plans for how the United States should respond to the Syria crisis, Palin is focusing on Obamacare, which goes into effect on October 1.

    Palin’s big concern with the Affordable Care Act is that “death panels” made of bureaucrats will have the final say in our healthcare. She believes that the elderly and disabled will be refused care in efforts to keep costs down.

    See Palin’s post and the accompanying video below.

    Many Twitter users responded to her post, and reactions have ranged from heckling the former governor to surprise at her choice of words.

    Palin’s Twitter post comes just over a week after she made a controversial post to her Facebook account with the title “LET ALLAH SORT IT OUT.” The post says that “We should let Allah” sort out the Syria crisis until America gets a Commander-in-Chief that knows what he’s doing. Palin also included the comment, “So we’re bombing Syria because Syria is bombing Syria? And I’m the idiot?”

    While Palin is being criticized for her views, she isn’t the only person concerned that the Syrian conflict is taking away attention from other important matters. On Monday Senator Ted Cruz said that the Syrian conflict was distracting people from holding the Obama administration accountable for Benghazi. While the senator considers how America reacts to the issue important, he doesn’t want other matters to be forgotten in the panic over Syria.

    What do you think–are Palin and Cruz right in that the focus on Syria needs to be shifted to other matters such as Obamacare and Benghazi? Discuss below.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Obama Asks To Head Down “Diplomatic Path” With Syria

    President Obama addressed the nation tonight regarding Syria and said he has asked Congress to delay a vote on whether or not to use military force while he pursues Russia’s plan to take over and destroy Syria’s chemical weapons.

    Obama acknowledged that the “diplomatic path” must be handled carefully in order to convince Syria that the U.S. means business, something that Secretary of State John Kerry agrees with.

    “It has to be swift, it has to be real, it has to be verifiable,” Mr. Kerry told the House Armed Services Committee. “It cannot be a delaying tactic.”

    “It’s too early to tell whether this offer will succeed, and any agreement must verify that the Assad regime keeps its commitment,” Obama said, “but this initiative has the potential to remove the threat of chemical weapons without the use of force, particularly because Russia is one of Assad’s strongest allies.”

    Many are in favor of Russia’s plan if it means the U.S. doesn’t have to get involved in the civil war that has divided Syria for almost three years. But despite backing the plan to seize their chemical weapons–and promising not to “put American boots on the ground” in Syria if the plan fails–President Obama said that doesn’t mean he won’t organize a targeted attack via the U.S. military if diplomacy gets them nowhere.

    Image: Wikimedia Commons

  • Hillary Clinton Backs Obama’s Stance on Syria

    In a speech given at an event sponsored by the Department of the Interior on Monday, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton voiced her support of President Barack Obama’s plan for a limited military strike against Syria. Clinton stated that “… Assad regime’s inhuman use of weapons of mass destruction against innocent men, women, and children violates a universal norm at the heart of our global order. And therefore it demands a strong response from the international community led by the United States.” This support of military intervention supports Clinton’s previous actions. She was one of the first democrats to voice her support for military action against Iraq, giving her a moniker as a “defense Democrat”.

    That being said, Clinton did make several statements which also seemed to support John Kerry’s “accidental” proposal that Syria hand over all of its chemical weapons to the international community; a proposal that was quickly backed by Russia and has now gained much traction in the international community. Clinton said that it would be an “important step” that Syria hand over all its chemical weapons, but that “…this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction. And Russia has to support the international community’s efforts sincerely or be held to account.” Clinton continued with this train of thought, stating that the only way this weapon-handing-over plan “only could take place in the context of a credible military threat to keep pressure on the Syrian government as well as those supporting Syria, like Russia.”

    Ultimately, Clinton concluded that “Achieving a political solution that ends the conflict is in the interests of the United States.” Up until this moment, Clinton had been surprisingly silent concerning the topic of Syria and US intervention, and perhaps for good reason. Clinton still seems to be the top contender for the Democratic nominee for president in 2016. Taking a hard-line stance on this issue could potentially present an obstacle to her election. A recent CNN/ORC International poll shows that less than half of the American public support any sort of military intervention in Syria, despite the fact that the majority of Americans believe Assad did use chemical weapons against his own people. Clinton’s rhetoric in this speech shows how reluctant she is to adopting one solution or the other. While she does state support for President Obama’s plan, she also leaves the table open for a diplomatic solution.

    Will this support for Obama’s plan ultimately hurt Clinton’s presidential bid? One can assume that her nomination is safe, but with much opposition to Obama’s plan of intervention in Syria and his overall low approval ratings, a Democratic bid for presidency in 2016 is looking to be a huge climb uphill. This rhetorical middle-ground that Clinton has sought in this speech probably gives her the best chance to come out on top in the end, considering she will be right no matter the outcome of the situation. (Heads she wins, tails you lose.)

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • White House Backs Russia’s Proposal For Syria

    President Obama agreed on Tuesday morning to work with the U.N. on a proposal to get Syria to give up its chemical weapons in order to avoid military action.

    The deal will only work, however, if the threat for U.S. military involvement is credible to the Syrian government. In other words, Syria needs to know the U.S. means business.

    “Nothing focuses the mind like the prospect of hanging,” Secretary of State John Kerry said. “It is the credible threat of force that has been on the table these last two weeks that has for the first time brought the regime to even acknowledge that they have a chemical weapons arsenal and it’s been our determination to hold Assad accountable that has motivated others to even talk about real and credible international action.”

    President Obama initially seemed skeptical of the proposal after Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moualem released a statement saying that the Arab republic of Syria supported it.

    “I think you have to take it with a grain of salt initially. This is not how we have seen them operate over the last couple of years,” Obama said.

    Nevertheless, President Obama has been in meetings today and is reportedly working with the U.N. to come up with a solution following discussions with President Francois Hollande of France and Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain.

    “They agreed to work closely together, and in consultation with Russia and China, to explore seriously the viability of the Russian proposal to put all Syrian chemical weapons and related materials fully under international control in order to ensure their verifiable and enforceable destruction,” a White House official said.

    Image: Wikimedia Commons

  • Syria Turn Over Weapons Promise Sways Obama

    While expressing skepticism about promises from the Syrian regime to turn over chemical weapons, during a Monday night NBC News interview, later that evening… President Barack Obama leaned toward the proposal in the face of public opposition and wavering congressional support. This during an interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace, saying, “We will pursue this diplomatic track.”

    The proposal—generally that Damascus might be reprieved from military action if it were to hand over chemical weapons to international inspectors—was delivered Monday morning by Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov. It was followed by a statement from Syrian foreign minister Walid al-Moualem, reportedly reading, “I announce that the Arab republic of Syria welcomes the Russian initiative.”

    Obama had originally voiced skepticism over the plan, which Damascus is welcoming in public, saying, “I think you have to take it with a grain of salt initially.” The President seemed inclined to learn from history, stating, “this is not how we have seen them operate over the last couple of years.”

    Syrian President Bashar al-Asad continues to issue denials that his regime conducted the chemical weapons attacks in August, one of the latest being to Charlie Rose in an interview, also airing Monday night.

    Voting on the issue in Congress, originally slated for Wednesday, has now been postponed. The President indicated the vote would not be rescheduled in the near future, while this more diplomatic route is being pursued.

    According to some, the Russian-initiated proposal stemmed from an offhand remark by Secretary of State John Kerry. In London, Kerry said that US strikes on Syria could be avoided if they would immediately surrender their supply of chemical weapons. Kerry further stated his belief that Damascus would do no such thing, but Moscow turned around an offer to broker the proposal.

    Obama took some amount of credit for the development, stating, “I have to say that it’s unlikely we would’ve arrived at that point without a credible military threat to deal with the chemical weapons inside of Syria.” Repeating earlier interview assertions that his administration would, “run this to ground.”

    The idea is also backed by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon as well as several Washington politicians and pundits, including former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton, who called it, “an important step,” if Syria followed-through.

    [Images via Fox News Facebook and Charlie Rose Show Facebook.]

  • Charlie Rose: Assad denies gas attack, is CIA lying?

    Charlie Rose: Assad denies gas attack, is CIA lying?

    Did Bashar Al-Assad use lethal gas to kill his own people? In an exclusive interview with Charlie Rose to be aired Monday night on PBS, Assad has emphatically denied that he had anything to do with the alleged chemical weapons attack that took place during August 2013.

    A teaser to the interview was played on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday morning followed by a tweet from the Charlie Rose Show

    It would be the height of naivete to believe a dictator’s assertions on their face value, but if the Iraq debacle has any lessons for America, then we cannot be so naive as to trust any “intelligence” coming out of Washington DC either.

    Unless you suffer from dementia, you would remember how we were fed the never ending stream of lies by mainstream media prior to the invasion of Iraq that cost us over 10,000 American lives, over 675,000 disability cases, and several trillions in treasure.

    As the famous middle-American saying goes, Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

    Despite massive problems at home, President Barack Obama wants Pentagon to launch military strikes against Syria — and expects US Congress to rubber stamp authorize them first.

    If the war in Syria spreads all the way to Iran, will the American and European economies be able to withstand a sudden and massive blockade across the Gulf of Hormuz, without creating a cataclysmic oil and currency crisis? Why are there no protests outside White House and Capitol Hill with the same strength and ferocity as they were during Bush’s catastrophic Iraq and Afghanistan wars to stop this madness?

    Poll after poll shows overwhelming American public reluctance to sink deeper and deeper into yet another West-Asian conflict. Pro-war Senators are being rebuked in no uncertain terms at town-hall meetings.

    Outside Washington DC, the middle-class wages, jobs and living standards have remained where they were during 1970s. But inside the beltway, there appears to be a bi-partisan effort in favor of deeper involvement in Syria.

    Many members of Congress are tempted to seek juicy careers as multi-million dollar paid lobbyists for the finance-media-military complex which makes them extremely prone to vote “yes” for more wars and intervention. Still others could have “skeletons in the closet” as far as their personal lives are concerned, so for fear of unsavory revelations, they are susceptible to making choices in their own self-interest rather than public interest.

    Whatever opposition there is to these seemingly endless wars is coming from the far-right wing of the GOP led by Rand Paul, the high profile but powerless Senator from Kentucky.

    So is the tide of public opinion enough to force a “no” vote out of Congress on Syria? We are about to find that out this week.

    [image via wikipedia]

  • Syria Christians Arise To Pray For Peace

    With tensions growing stronger with the current situation in Syria, a universal voice of Christianity arises among the fight. Even though the Christian population of Syria is a small percentage (10% according to the CIA’s World Factbook), the strength of their message is as loud as a storm.

    On Saturday, a majority of the Christians made their voices heard as they gathered into Our Lady of Dormition, the Melkite Greek Catholic Patriarchal Cathedral in Damascus. While these Christians held a vigil asking God to give them strength as well as peace, Gregory III Laham, a Patriarch of the Melkite Greek Catholic denomination, exclaimed the following to the group of worshippers who attended the Our Lady of Dormition vigil.

    “We thank all those who, at the United Nations, are working for peace so that there would not be any strike on Syria. I tell the young people, ‘stay here’. We will stay in Syria. We will stay here, both Christians and Muslims.”

    The Christians who attended the vigil have been outraged by the violence that has recently shook Maalula, a Syrian town that symbolizes Christianity, and where its residents speak Aramaic, the native tongue spoken by Jesus. As the violence continues in Maalula, many children gathered outside the town’s cathedral holding up signs reading “Maalula is burning, save it!”

    According to Yahoo! News, the Syrian Government has not been that keen on claiming responsibility for these attacks on their Christian-based regions. President Bashar al-Assad, along with his government, denies any responsibility for the attacks mentioned. Various Christians in Syria have taken to Twitter to protest their beliefs and opinions pertaining to this violent ordeal, including the user below, who stands strong with her faith in this crisis:

    [Image source: Twitter]

  • Senator Ted Cruz on Obama, Syria and Benghazi

    In an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Senator Ted Cruz discussed his take on the U.S.’s handling of Syria and Benghazi.

    The Republican Texas senator said that President Obama doesn’t have the “authority” to issue an attack on Syria and says such an attack would be a “mistake.” Cruz also said that an attack “would be contrary to the Constitution,” something he thinks could get Obama impeached. While Cruz is concerned with Syria, he believes that all of the talk about an attack on Syria is making Americans forget about another issue–Benghazi.

    “This is the one-year anniversary of the attack on Benghazi” Cruz said. “In Benghazi, four Americans were killed, including the first ambassador since 1979. When it happened, the president promised to hunt the wrongdoers down, and yet a few months later, the issue has disappeared. You don’t hear the president mention Benghazi. Now it’s a phony scandal.”

    The president has been criticized by many for how the Benghazi situation was handled, and CNN released a report in early August alleging that the CIA was taking extreme measures to cover up Benghazi secrets. “One of the problems with all of this focus on Syria, is it’s missing the ball from what we should be focused on,” Cruz said during the interview. “We ought to be defending U.S. national security, and going after radical Islamic terrorists.”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JAcS74yzII

    Even though Cruz doesn’t think Obama is giving Benghazi the proper attention, he is making sure that everyone knows he thinks intervening in Syria is the wrong path to take. “It is not the responsibility of the United States military to serve as the policeman of the world,” Cruz said during a briefing last week. The senator posted a Tweet a few days ago criticizing how the Syrian conflict has been handled:

    What do you think–is Cruz right about Benghazi being an afterthought now? Respond below.

    Image via YouTube

  • Harry Reid, Reconvenes Senate Early, Files Syria Rez

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid started forward momentum in Congress this weekend toward possible military intervention in Syria. The Democratic Senator from Nevada briefly reconvened his colleagues on Friday to file a resolution authorizing President Barack Obama’s desired military strikes in Syria. Congress was not set to resume until Monday.

    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee already approved a resolution on action last week; allowing it for up to 90 days but prohibiting boots-on-the-ground troops, which Obama had originally promised would not be required.

    Three of the “Big Four” congressional leaders have come out in favor of the White House’s resolution: Reid, Speaker of the House John Boehner and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi.

    The apparent unknown on the Hill is Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell. McConnell, facing a rocky bid at re-election in Kentucky, has gone on record after being briefed by the President on Tuesday (seen above) as saying, “Congress and our constituents would all benefit from knowing more about what it is he thinks needs to be done—and can be accomplished—in Syria and the region.” The Kentucky Senator is being fired upon himself for not having come out on one side or the other of the debate; the Senator’s social media presence last posted on 5 September about Obamacare.

    Next Wednesday—which will mark 21 days from the chemical attacks in Syria on 21 August—is the anticipated procedural vote on the issue and Reid is trying to bolster support among Democrats for the President’s plan; White House officials are frantically doing the same. In the Senate, 60 votes would be required to bypass any procedural hiccups.

    When addressing indications that Representatives and Senators increasingly seem to be opposed to the President’s initiative, White House Chief of Staff, Denis R. McDonough said on Friday, “It’s too early to jump to any conclusions on where the House or the Senate is.”

    Tuesday night is scheduled as Obama’s chance to make his case to the public. Polls still reveal that the majority of Americans are opposed to military strikes, albeit limited.

    As per usual, a conglomeration of politicians, informed commentators and the peanut gallery are posting their opinions for all to see…

    Want to hear from the peace-mongering celebs you’re used to seeing pop up in times like these? Sean Penn and others have been notably silent on the topic. Don’t worry though, Madonna has raised her iconic voice amid the silence (or rather her Facebook); she opposes military intervention in Syria.

    [Image via White House Official Blog.]

  • Jaime Herrera Beutler: Baby Improves; Going to DC

    Republican congresswoman from Washington state, Jaime Herrera Beutler, is temporarily stepping away from her infant daughter’s hospital bed in Palo Alto, CA, to be part of the upcoming vote on Syria. The Representative plans to return to her full duties once her daughter is healthy enough to go home but until then, Herrera Beutler will commute to Washington, D.C. for key votes.

    Abigail Rose Beutler is currently at the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital in Palo Alto. Five months into the pregnancy, the Beutlers were informed that Abigail had Potter’s Syndrome. Doctors there say that she will be on dialysis until she is able to withstand a kidney transplant about a year from now but they remain positive about her future. Abigail—born three months premature—may be the first child to survive the grim condition due to an experimental procedure.

    Herrera Beutler and husband, Daniel Beutler, were interviewed on the Today show Friday morning about their daughter’s condition and progress. Herrera Beutler said Abigail, “is doing amazing,” and, “we’ve gotten to the point where we’re holding her. She’s playing… She has a few challenges; but man, she’s determined.”

    At the time of the diagnosis, Abigail had no kidneys, therefore she was producing no fetal urine and that results in little or no amniotic fluid, preventing lungs from developing. Typically a baby with this type of Potter’s Syndrome is born without fully developed lungs and so the likelihood was that the child would die. In the Beutler’s case, they opted for an experimental treatment which involved uterine saline injections; those permitted Abigail’s lungs to develop.

    Herrera Beutler expressed the couple’s feelings when the diagnosis was presented to them: “It is the worst moment in your life… He (the doctor) was telling us, ‘Your baby has no options.’ And at that moment she was moving, I mean she was moving in me, and he’s telling me she’s not going to live.”

    Daniel Beutler’s advice to other parents facing similar news is to not settle for just one medical prognosis, “work hard to find one that will partner with you to make sure that anything possible will be at least tried.”

    The couple explained that most of the doctors approached were not willing to try treatments that had so far been unproven. They were referred by a woman who heard their story to the doctor—from Johns Hopkins hospital in Maryland—who would eventually try the injections. This word-of-mouth recommendation is part of what prompted the couple to tell their story on the NBC morning program, so they could widen awareness of the treatment.

    (image)

    Representative Beutler announced her pregnancy on Facebook last May, and today’s posting is a recommendation to watch the Today interview. She credits colleagues in Congress for supporting her and her family through this challenging time, specifically citing communications from House Speaker John Boehner and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

    [Image via Representative Beutler’s Facebook.]

  • Kenneth Cole Was Just “Provoking Dialogue” with Syria Tweet

    While the internet chastised designer Kenneth Cole yesterday for “mocking war to sell shoes,” the man himself says that he was only provoking discussion using his platform.

    Things are screwed up in Syria, and that’s the understatement of the year. Not only have thousands of people died (including children), but the U.S. is currently weighing military action – action that is pretty unpopular among the American people. With the U.S. on the brink of possible international involvement, Cole posted this tweet and ruffled some feathers:

    As you might imagine, there were plenty of “what the hell, man”s and “seriously, dude?”s – especially considering this wasn’t Kenneth Cole’s first rodeo in terms of controversial tweets. Back in 2011, Cole tweeted “Millions are in uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online.”

    Anyway, he later posted a response to the backlash over the tweet:

    “I’ve always used my platform to provoke dialogue about important issues including HIV/AIDS, war, and homelessness. I am well aware of the risks that come with this approach, and if this encourages further awareness and discussion about critical issues then all the better,” says Cole in a Instagram video.

    Except there’s one problem with that. Kenneth Cole’s Syria intervention tweet didn’t stir up discussion about the Syrian conflict – it mostly stirred up discussion about the fact that Kenneth Cole made a dumb Syria tweet.

    Either way, he did get people talking, that’s for sure. And the responses from some on Twitter have been a bit over the top. I’m not sure Kenneth Cole is a “sociopath,” as one user claims. He’s not “stupid as fuck,” either. He used the platform to provoke dialogue – just like he said.

    But he just wound up kind of looking like a dick in the process. Oh well, social media attention favors the bold.

    Image via Kenneth Cole, Instagram

  • G20 Summit: Syria, World Economy Discussed

    The Group of 20, a group of countries developed and emerging whose populations comprise two out of three people on Earth, saw their world leaders gather in St. Petersburg over the last two days. First coming together in 2009 to counter the economic crisis, the G20’s fifth anniversary will see a variety of geopolitical issues discussed, beginning with Syria.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin opened the ceremony with a lukewarm message highlighting his focuses for the meeting: “As this summit is shadowed by U.S. desires [to launch] airstrikes on Syria… the G20 is here celebrating it’s fifth anniversary… We were able to consolidate the main world economies together, we were able to limit the consequences of the world economic crisis, and we were able to [try and avoid] future crises [by building] a firewall against them… the G20 has shown that it can [get serious problems under control]… but in my opinion, we cannot rest on our laurels, because the global economy needs to find stable economic growth, and this has not yet been achieved.”

    A BBC article acknowledged that the situation surrounding Syria is not on the agenda; however, Putin’s hopes are that it will be informally discussed during the working dinner. Regarding Russia’s views on evidence of chemical weapons usage in Syria, Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesperson, said that Russia “can’t accept proof that is a long way from being convincing.”

    Russia’s own media has had a variety of reactions, from former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s desires to see an agreement reached (“They must strike up a conversation that will lead to the improvement of relations,” he said) to the liberal paper Kommersant, which wrote that when the moment arrives that the U.S. strikes Syria, “what happens [after that moment] stopped mattering to him [Vladimir Putin]… The U.S. president might as well not travel to St Petersburg from Stockholm: Putin isn’t interested any more.”

    In spite of President Obama’s recent claims that Japan’s prime minister Shinzo Abe had shared opinions on the issue of a military strike, Abe has made no such statements of support.

    Meanwhile, on other parts of the summit floor, the only item on some countries’ tongues was money. A Reuters report on the G20 Summit has many nations up in arms over recent decisions by the U.S. to reduce the amount of printed money.

    The head of the Finance Ministry’s international department, Andrei Bokarev, told Reuters that “The most difficult and time-consuming discussions [are] related to the evaluation of the situation of global economy.” Bokarev also helped draft a communique that went out to the attending nations that insisted on a united monetary policy that is “carefully calibrated and clearly communicated.”

    India was targeted by China and Russia, in particular, for not handling an account deficit that risked the rupee’s economic health, particularly while the U.S. dollar is being tapered. The communique made it expressively clear: “emerging markets agree to take the necessary actions to support growth and maintain stability, including efforts to improve fundamentals, increase resilience to external shocks and strengthen financial systems.”

    One major positive to come out of this year’s G20: the European downturn appears to be coming around. European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso was thrilled because,”at this G20 we were no longer the focus of attention.”

    [Image via a formerly live stream on Youtube of opening of the G20 Summit]

  • Russian Warships Head to Syria’s Coast

    The St. Petersburg central naval command has announced the large landing warship “Nikolai Filchenkov” will set sail for the Syrian coast to join two Russian destroyers which have already left, as Moscow boosts it’s presence in the region ahead of expectations that the US will not wait for the world to support them. The US is unlikely to wait for any support from world leaders or the United Nations but use the expected approval of its Congress to launch a two-month “limited” campaign as early as the end of the month.

    The US also has warships in the area and, as president Barack Obama has previously revealed, any military engagement would likely come from air strikes – most likely fired from (warships) on suspected chemical weapons plants and the mechanisms of delivery including the Syrian airforce.

    The Russian warships will join a Russian anti-submarine ship, a frigate and three other landing ships in the eastern Mediterranean coast. The Russians say the latest warship deployed would be collecting “special cargo” but would not elaborate.

    “The ship will make call in Novorossiisk, where it will take on board special cargo and set off for the designated area of its combat duty in the eastern Mediterranean,”

    a Russian official said.

    The deployment comes amid high tensions at the G20 summit of world leaders, which took place in the Russian city St. Petersburg, the Summit was intended to debate the economy and poverty in developing nations but instead the agenda has been hijacked by the Syrian crisis.There is a clear split in opinion at the conference as to the evidence that the Bashar al-Assad regime used chemical weapons on its citizens which killed more than 1400 people including 400 children last month.

    There now appears to be little debate chemicals were used but a split on who actually used them. Both Russia and China, which held private talks at the summit, do not believe the evidence sustainable, while on the other hand, the US, UK, France and Australia believe it is and that retaliation is required.

    UN chief Ban ki-moon has been attending the summit urging support for a peace conference, while Russian President Vladimir Putin, overnight Summit host, held a dinner for the leaders during which they made their case for entry into the Syria crisis. President Obama said he had ”very high confidence” in the evidence showing that chemical weapons were used and urged strong condemnation. He was supported by Prime Minister David Cameron, and Australia’s Foreign Minister Bob Carr, who also said that they also had strong evidence of an atrocity by the regime. France’s Francois Hollande said he was prepared to enter the conflict.

    The leaders have precious little time to bridge very bitter gaps and quell the animosity between nations, notably the US, Russia, and the UK. The tensions in forums have made talks difficult. Mr Putin’s official spokesman Dmitry Peskov yesterday dismissed Britain as “just a small island no-one pays any attention to” and boasted how rich Russians were buying up most of Chelsea, an upmarket suburb in London, and the US has made clear it’s disdain for Putin. Who wouldn’t love to be a fly on that wall?