. . . it must be Syria.
Does the White House situation room have a map of the Mideast posted on a cork-board and a bunch of darts in a nearby bucket? Is that how our fearless leaders decide which oily nation to bomb/invade/plunder next?
Think they should, perhaps, clean up the other two murderous messes before sending our beleaguered troops and our bombs into another theater in the never-ending terror wars?
Naaaaaaaa . . . . where’s the fun in that, right?
Syria is next up on the terror-wheel, and the US will justify it’s airstrikes because the Syrian government under President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against its own people. Sound familiar?
Sec. of State John Kerry, doing a long-faced version of Colin Powell circa 2003, presented the justification for another war without end, Amen, at the State Department:
In some of the most aggressive language used yet by the administration, Mr. Kerry accused the Syrian government of the “indiscriminate slaughter of civilians” and of cynical efforts to cover up its responsibility for a “cowardly crime.”
Mr. Kerry’s remarks at the State Department reinforced the administration’s toughening stance on the Syria conflict, which is now well into its third year, and indicated that the White House was moving closer to a military response in consultation with America’s allies.
Administration officials said that although President Obama had not made a final decision on military action, he was likely to order a limited military operation — cruise missiles launched from American destroyers in the Mediterranean Sea at military targets in Syria, for example — and not a sustained air campaign intended to topple Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian president, or to fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground.
In the coming days, officials said, the nation’s intelligence agencies will disclose information to bolster their case that chemical weapons were used by Mr. Assad’s forces. The information could include so-called signals intelligence — intercepted radio or telephone calls between Syrian military commanders.
Or the information could just come from their preferred source of disinformation, Saudi Prince Bandar, who has made a career out of using the might of the US military to topple his enemies in the Mideast, as The Independent, UK reports:
He has been gone from the capital for eight years, but Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who as Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to Washington wielded influence over no fewer than five different US presidents, has re-emerged as a pivotal figure in the struggle by America and its allies to tilt the battlefield balance against the regime in Syria.
Appointed by the Saudi king, his uncle, last year as the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Agency, Prince Bandar has reportedly for months been focused exclusively on garnering international support, including arms and training, for Syrian rebel factions in pursuit of the eventual toppling of President Bashar al-Assad.
It is a long-term Saudi goal, that in the past several days has been subsumed by the more immediate crisis over the purported use of chemical weapons by Damascus, which, according to Riyadh, must be met by a stern response. That message is being delivered to President Barack Obama by the current Saudi Ambassador in Washington, Adel al-Jubeir, who is a Bandar protégé.
As ambassador, Prince Bandar left an imprint that still has not quite faded. His voice was one of the loudest urging the United States to invade Iraq in 2003. In the 1980s, Prince Bandar became mired in the Iran-Contra scandal in Nicaragua.
Bandar was the chief apologist for the 15 Saudi hijackers who attacked this country on 9-11-2001. And he obtained safe passage for the bin Laden family to leave America after the attack. He then steered the Bush Crime Family to forget the Saudi involvement in 9-11 and instead turn it’s sights toward Iraq, even though there was no evidence iraq had anything to do with 9-11, or posed any threat to the US (despite Colin Powell’s miserable magic show at the UN Security Council). Why Bandar’s bloodlust for Saddam? Because Saddam attacked Kuwait – a key part of the Saudi oil kingdom.
Bandar’s ties and sympathies to al Qaeda are well documented, and yet he is one of our most influential, trusted and revered “friends” in the region. Robert Scheer explains it all:
Now that the Arab Spring has been turned into a totally owned subsidiary of the Saudi royal family, it is time to honor Prince Bandar bin Sultan as the most effective Machiavellian politician of the modern era. How slick for this head of the Saudi Intelligence Agency to finance the Egyptian military’s crushing of that nation’s first-ever democratic election while being the main source of arms for pro-al-Qaida insurgents in Syria.
Just consider that a mere 12 years ago, this same Bandar was a beleaguered Saudi ambassador in Washington, a post he held from 1983 to 2005, attempting to explain his nation’s connection to 15 Saudi nationals who had somehow secured legal documents to enter the U.S. and succeeded in hijacking planes that blew up the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and crashed into a field in Pennsylvania. How awkward given that the Saudi ambassador had been advocating that U.S. officials go easy on the Taliban government in Afghanistan, where those attacks incubated.
The ties between Saudi Arabia and the alleged al-Qaida terrorist attacks were manifest. The terrorists were followers of the Saudi-financed branch of Wahhabi Islam and their top leader, Osama bin Laden, was a scion of one of the most powerful families in the Saudi kingdom, which, along with the United Arab Emirates and Pakistan, had been the only three nations in the world to recognize the legitimacy of the Taliban government in Afghanistan that provided sanctuary to al-Qaida. Yet Bandar had no difficulty arranging safe passage out of Washington for many Saudis, including members of the bin Laden family that U.S. intelligence agents might have wanted to interrogate instead of escorting them to safety back in the kingdom.
But the U.S. war on terror quickly took a marvelous turn from the point of view of the Saudi monarchy. Instead of focusing on those who attacked us and their religious and financial ties to the Saudi royal family, the U.S. began a mad hunt to destroy those who had absolutely nothing to do with the assaults of 9/11.
Saddam Hussein in Iraq came quickly to mind, even though he had brutally crushed the al-Qaida efforts in his own country. But Hussein had earlier made the mistake of attacking the oil sheikdom of Kuwait, an acquiescent ally of the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, a second war against Iraq was in order.
So. Here we are. About to embark on another of “Bandar Bush” inspired bloody battle in the Mideast. Were we not so dependent on Saudi oil, think of the lives that could’ve been saved. Tens of thousands of Us troops maimed and killed. Triple that number of innocent dead in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. US taxpayer dollars thrown into the flames, along with our reputation as a beacon of freedom and liberty.
Is it worth it?
Join Mike LIVE at 9PM ET for this and other soothing bedtime stories.
BIG ANNOUNCEMENT on the program tonight, Truthseekers, about the future of the Malloy Show!
We have plans to permanently end any podcast technical issues. We have plans to enhance the interactivity of the program. We have plans to expand and grow in new directions to reach more Truthseekers around the world.
Tune in tonight LIVE at 9PM ET and all will be revealed!