TEN YEARS ON FROM KATRINA: STILL NOT CAUSED BY ‘CLIMATE CHANGE’, WHATEVER NAOMI KLEIN SAYS

“I thought it was best to write about my own raw terror,” says activist Naomi Klein, in a moving interview in today’s Guardian.

Is she talking about the time she flew to Raqqa in Syria to try to audition for the al-Khansa brigade only to discover that the other girls found her politics a bit extreme and  that, anyway, like, black so totally didn’t suit her?

Or the time she saw – eek! – a really big spider in her bath?

Or the occasion when the airline said: “Sorry Ms Klein. Business is fully booked. I’m afraid we’re going to have put you in coach.”?

Nope. She’s talking about climate change – and how she has sought to make it exciting and relevant to her readership, with special reference to Hurricane Katrina ten years ago.

“A lot of the way we communicate climate change doesn’t acknowledge the emotional side of it,” she explains.

Which, actually, when you think about it, is about as 1000 per cent the opposite of true as anything even Pinocchio would be capable of saying with his fingers crossed behind his back on International Liar Liar Pants Are On Fire Day.

The way we communicate climate change doesn’t acknowledge the emotional side of it?

The way your lot communicates climate change, Naomi, does nothing else butacknowledge the emotional side of it. That’s because it’s the only remaining vaguely functional weapon you’ve got left in your armoury. The science abandoned you long ago. The business case for environmentalism has all the credibility of “an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is.” All you greenies have left is raw emotion: never mind the awkward facts, just feel the world’s pain and enlightenment will follow.

No doubt this is why Klein has felt compelled to invent a deadly new “cocktail” to liven up her moribund doomsday thesis. It’s a bit like Al Gore’s ManBearPig, only worthier because it has the all important issues of “race” and “inequality” chucked into the mix. The cocktail came into her head – where else? – in New Orleans. It was while she was covering the floods after Hurricane Katrina ten years ago:

It was this cocktail of heavy weather, racism, and crumbling infrastructure. It felt like I was looking into the future. People said it was like science fiction, with a rich country abandoning the residents of one of its cities, vigilantes roaming the streets, with anyone around after curfew fair game.

For someone with a background of economic justice, what scared me about climate change is not just that the sea level will rise and we’ll have more storms, it’s how this intersects with that cocktail of inequality and racism.

Woah! Sounds terrible!

Except, of course, it is based on a fundamental lie. Hurricane Katrina was NOT caused by climate change.

This was acknowledged as far back as 2007 even by the fervently alarmist New Scientist.

The chaotic nature of weather makes it impossible to prove that any single event such asHurricane Katrina is due to global warming. It is also impossible to prove that global warming did not play a part, so debates about the causes of individual events are futile.

But that wasn’t going to stop shysters like Al Gore trying to make hay while the wind blew (in an address to the Sierra Club)

“Winston Churchill, when the storm was gathering on continental Europe, provided warnings of what was at stake. And he said this about the government then in power in England — which wasn’t sure that the threat was real — he said, ‘They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.” He continued, “The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.”

“Ladies and gentlemen, the warnings about global warming have been extremely clear for a long time. We are facing a global climate crisis. It is deepening. We are entering a period of consequences.”

And how did global climate respond to this growing threat? Why, only by embarking onthe longest hiatus in hurricane activity in the US in recorded history:

Among the longest records of active hurricane zones is on the US east coast. NOAA’sHurricane Research Division has data back to 1851. No major hurricane (category 3 or more) has hit the continental US since Wilma in October 2005. That is the longest pause on record. NOAA says “It is premature to conclude that human activities — and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming — have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane activity.

Hence Naomi Klein’s desperate – and risibly dishonest – attempts to hide the decline in hurricane activity by throwing “race” and “inequality” into the mix.

Yes, it may well be that “race” remains a toxic issue in the US.

And we can all agree with her on “equality”: truly it is unconscionable and wrong that millionaire climate racketeers like Al Gore and Tom Steyer are able to enrich themselves at the expense of ordinary taxpaying folk by manipulating green legislation to their financial advantage.

But “climate change” as a justification for “raw terror”? Not so much. Certainly not on the basis of any current scientific evidence…

Via: Breitbart

Continue Reading....

U.S. pulling Patriot missiles from Turkey

In this image provided by the U.S. Air Force, an F-16 Fighting Falcon takes off from Incirlik Air Base, Turkey, as the U.S. on Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2015, launched its first airstrikes by Turkey-based F-16 fighter jets against Islamic State targets in Syria. (Krystal Ardrey/U.S. Air Force via AP))

The U.S. military is pulling its Patriot missiles from Turkey this fall, the U.S. Embassy in Ankara announced Sunday.

The Patriot missiles "will be redeployed to the United States for critical modernization upgrades," according to a statement from the U.S. Embassy in Turkey.  "This decision follows a U.S. review of global missile defense posture."

"The U.S. and NATO commitments to the defense of Allies - including Turkey - are steadfast," the statement said.

The U.S. military has deployed Patriot missiles along the Turkey-Syria border since 2013 along with a ground force of 300 U.S. Army soldiers to operate them, protecting Turkey from potential Syrian missiles.

The decision to pull the missiles has been "long planned" and is not a response to Turkey's unannounced massive airstrike against a Kurdish separatist group in northern Iraq on July 24, a State Dept. official said. The strike endangered U.S. Special Forces on the ground training Kurdish Peshmerga fighters, angering U.S. military officials. The U.S. military was taken completely by surprise by the Turkish airstrike, which involved 26 jets, military sources told Fox News.

Patriot missiles have been upgraded in recent years to shoot down ballistic missiles, in addition to boasting an ability to bring down enemy aircraft. The U.S. military has deployed these missiles along Turkey's border with Syria.

When a Kurdish journalist asked the Army's outgoing top officer, Gen. Raymond Odierno, about the incident over northern Iraq at his final press conference Wednesday, Odierno replied: "We've had conversations about this to make sure it doesn't happen."

The Kurdistan Workers Party, or PKK, has been listed as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department. It is influenced by Marxist ideology and has been responsible for recent attacks in Turkey, killing Turkish police and military personnel. A separate left-wing radical group was responsible for attacking the U.S. Consulate in Istanbul last week.

State Department and Pentagon officials have said in recent days that Turkey has a right to defend itself against the PKK.

A senior military source told Fox News that Turkey is worried about recent gains by Syrian Kurds, some affiliated with the PKK. But the group is seen as an effective ground force against ISIS, helping pinpoint ISIS targets for U.S. warplanes. 

The Turks, however, worry Syrian Kurds will take over most of the 560-mile border it shares with Syria.

Currently, ISIS controls a 68-mile strip along the Turkey-Syria border, but Turkey does not want Kurdish fighters involved in the fight to push out ISIS from this portion of the border because it would enable the Kurds to control a large swath of land stretching from northern Iraq to the Mediterranean. Right now Syrian Kurds occupy both sides of the contested 68-mile border controlled by ISIS.

Of the 30 million Kurds living in the Middle East, 14 million reside in Turkey. They are one of the world's largest ethnic groups without its own country.

Despite Turkey being listed among the 62-nation anti-ISIS coalition, it has yet to be named as a country striking ISIS in the coalition's daily airstrike report.  

A week ago, after months of negotiations, the U.S. Air Force moved six F-16 fighter jets to Incirlik Air Base in Turkey from their base in Italy and several KC-135 refueling planes. Airstrikes against ISIS in Syria soon followed.    

The decision to allow manned U.S. military aircraft inside Turkey came days after an ISIS suicide bomber killed dozens of Turkish citizens.

Part of Turkey's reluctance to do more against ISIS is because Turkey wants the U.S. military to take on the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad. But that is not U.S. policy.  

"We are not at war with the Assad regime," Pentagon spokesman Capt. Jeff Davis said recently.

The animosity between Turkey and Syria goes back decades. In 1939, Turkey annexed its southern most province, Hatay, from Assad family land. Syria has never recognized the move and the two countries have been at odds ever since.

"If needed, we are prepared to return Patriot assets and personnel to Turkey within one week," a defense official told Fox News.

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading.....

God, protect our babies from both president and pope

Unless his intention is to radically change or convert President Barack Obama, when Pope Francis descends on America next month,  he will in essence be paying open homage to the world’s top champion of partial birth abortion.

The pope will meet with Obama on Sept, 23 as part of his first trip to America as the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

“According to a White House statement released Thursday, the two leaders will discuss “their shared values” on issues such as “caring for the marginalized and poor,” the economy, the environment, religious freedom, and immigration. The two are scheduled to meet Sept. 23, the day before the pope’s unprecedented address to a joint session of Congress.” (CruxNow, March 26, 2015)

Will the pontiff and president talk about the continuing sale of aborted baby parts by government funded Planned Parenthood?

It’s not on the agenda.

The only time Obama talks about the baby-killing Planned Parenthood it is to promote it.  Obama even wished the organization a rousing “God bless!” in an April 2013 speech to the organization.

“During his speech to the Planned Parenthood abortion business today, President Barack Obama asked God to bless the number one abortion performer in the United States. (LifeNews, April 26, 2013)

“Here is how he ended his speech:

“As long as we’ve got to fight to make sure women have access to quality, affordable health care, and as long as we’ve got to fight to protect a woman’s right to make her own choices about her own health, I want you to know that you’ve also got a president who’s going to be right there with you, fighting every step of the way,” said Obama. “Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

For its part, the Vatican, piously pushing the ‘Thou shalt be good stewards of the environment’ angle,  remains mum about the sale of baby parts on the open market by Planned Parenthood.

“The two men met for the first time in March, 2014, when Mr. Obama visited the pope at the Vatican.  During that meeting, they discussed similar issues, as well as the conflict in Syria”. (New York Times, March 26, 2015)

In the fullness of time, we now know that the parlay of the pope and president did nothing to improve stability in Syria. 

Via: Canada Free Press

Continue Reading...

ISIS’ Worst Nightmare Just Got In The War

Turkish planes bombed Islamic State targets for the first time Friday, representing the country’s first armed foray into the conflict against the group.

The airstrikes, which reportedly destroyed three terrorist sites in Syria, represent a serious change in the country’s approach to ISIS. Just months ago, Turkey was attracting criticism for its lax enforcement of the 500-mile border it shares with Syria, which countless jihadi groups use for smuggling fighters to the front lines of battle.

The announcement came just a day after reports emerged of American pilots conducting raids out of two Turkish airbases for the first time. Turkey’s government confirmed the reports Friday, stating that “Turkey and the US have decided to further deepen their ongoing cooperation in the fight” against ISIS. (RELATED: Pentagon: Airstrike Killed Infamous Syrian Al-Qaida Leader)

Previously, the airbases only hosted U.S. surveillance drones, not aircraft with striking capability.

On Monday, a suicide bomb killed 32 people in the southern town of Suruç. The town’s population is majority-Kurdish; while Kurds have been among the strongest fighters against ISIS in Syria, Turkey is suspicious of its own Kurds’ aspirations to independence.

In the days since, Turkey has cracked down on suspected Islamic State sympathizers, as well as Kurdish nationalists and radical leftist groups.

The United States has been pressuring a hesitant Turkey to join its coalition against Islamic State since it first began bombing the group last summer. Monday’s attack may have precipitated the government’s response.

But government statements claimed the air raids were in response to gunfire Thursday by Islamic State militants against a Turkish military installation, which killed a soldier. It is unclear whether Turkey will continue to participate in the campaign after an initial series of attacks.\

Via: Daily Caller

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIAL] Washington Times: Obama's Red Lines and Big Lies

President Obama warned in August 2012 that Syria must not cross his “red line” against using chemical weapons against the rebels — or else. President Bashar Assad has continued to cross Mr. Obama’s red line, and we’re still waiting to see the “else.”

What is plain to see is a heavy rain of chemical weapons on rebel fighters in Syria, in 29 incidents this spring alone. The Washington Times reported Wednesday that the deal Mr. Obama made last year with the government in Damascus “left chlorine on the table as a weapon.” Barrel bombs filled with weaponized chlorine do deadly work.

To add insult to incompetent negotiating, Mr. Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry continue to embrace the lie that the United States has succeeded in getting “all the chemical weapons out of Syria.”

Mr. Obama clearly understands the consequences of doing nothing. In 2012, he said that “the point … made about chemical and biological weapons is critical. That’s an issue that doesn’t just concern Syria. It concerns our close allies in the region, including Israel. It concerns us. We cannot have a situation where chemical or biological weapons are falling into the hands of the wrong people.

“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is [when] we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”

Or he can just change his story. Our reporter Guy Taylor reports that “House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce plans on Wednesday to highlight how claims by the administration and the United Nations to have successfully rid Syria of chemical weapons have fallen far short — leaving the regime with a deadly arsenal of barrel bombs filled with weaponized chlorine.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/17/editorial-obama-must-deal-with-syrias-chemical-wea/#ixzz3dRvuHPA6 
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[AUDIO] Rick Perry: Obama Lacks ‘Executive Experience’

Earlier this week, during his press conference at the G7 Summit in Germany, President Barack Obama said in response to a question about the fight against ISIS, “We don’t yet have a complete strategy, because it requires commitments on the part of the Iraqis.”

The president’s conservative’s critics were quick to jump all over the statement as proof that the administration doesn’t know what it’s doing in the Middle East, a narrative that carried into an interview Dana Loesch conducted with former Texas governor and current Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry this week.

Perry said he was “stunned” that Obama would make those comments publicly and that he believed they provided some level of insight into the president’s mentality on ISIS. The candidate suggested that if Obama hadn’t expressed a “lack of engagement to stop ISIS” in Syria, then the U.S. could have somehow eliminated both the terrorist network and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, despite the fact that they were fighting each other and knocking one side down would have only bolstered the other.

“It’s this lack of really being able to connect the dots, I think it’s a lack of executive experience that this president has, as well as a philosophical void when it comes to understanding what it takes to keep America safe,” Perry added.

While this “executive experience” argument may have been a reasonable line of attack against Obama in 2008, now that he has been president for more than six years, it rings a bit hollow.

Listen to the full interview below (ISIS comments start at approx. 15:40):

Via: Mediaite

Continue Reading....

[EDITORIAL] Behind Barack Obama’s delusions of global respect

At a town-hall meeting last week, President Obama proudly bragged that “today, once again, the United States is the most respected country on earth.”

That jaw-dropper makes sense to him — because the only opinion that counts for the president is the opinion of folks who share his ideology: above all, the belief that America should never use its power unless “world opinion” (i.e., pretty much those same folks) agrees.

So it doesn’t matter that Vladimir Putin laughs at Obama’s America — continuing his invasion of Ukraine with just enough “deniability” that Obama can pretend it’s something else.

Or that China knows it can continue its grab of key sea areas, even building vast artificial islands on which to plant its flag (and weapons), because Obama will never risk confrontation.

Or that both Moscow and Beijing continue to give their hackers free rein to attack US targets — confident that Obama will overlook anything as ethereal as cyberspace.

Or that Bashar al-Assad is back to using chemical weapons, because Obama has already proved he lacks the will to enforce his own “red line.”

(Bonus disrespect: The Syrian butcher is also helping ISIS slaughter rival anti-Assad
forces because he figures “world opinion” will support his own odious regime once ISIS is the only other choice.)

Do Poland or the Czech Republic respect Obama after he pulled US anti-missile bases out of their territory as part of his pathetic “reset button” bid to win Putin’s love? Or, eyes on Ukraine, do they worry how else Obama’s America will fail them?

Time and again, Obama told Israelis he has their back. He promised all options were on the table to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Now he says military action is off the table — and his planned nuclear deal, by his own account, leaves Tehran set to build nukes within a dozen years.

The Saudis and other Arab rulers feel just as abandoned: That’s why most of them declined to even show for Obama’s “Arab summit” last month.

As for Iran: It’s already breaking the “interim” nuclear deal by building enriched-uranium stockpiles far larger than it promised to hold as of June 30. The mullahs plainly figure he won’t call them on it — nor on any “deniable” violations of whatever accord he winds up with.

Via: New York Post

Continue Reading.....

Days After Obama Admin Asked Networks to Not Show ‘Inaccurate’ B-Roll of its Advances, Islamic State Seized Two Cities

Merely days after reports of the Obama administration asking networks to stop airing “inaccurate” B-roll of the Islamic State because it portrayed them advancing in Iraq and Syria, the terrorist group took down the cities of Ramadi in Iraq and Palmyra in Syria.

Islamic State took the occasion to film more propaganda footage of itself marching through the empty cities, with horrific images of its enemies’ corpses and destroyed buildings in its wake.

The Fox News talk show OutNumbered discussed Politico‘s report on the U.S. government’s efforts to quash what it deemed misleading footage May 15, and three days later, the fall of Ramadi, capital of the Anbar Province, was one of the lead stories on every network broadcast.

Politico reported May 13:

Senior State Department and Pentagon officials have begun contacting television network reporters to ask them to stop using “B-roll” — stock footage that appears on screen while reporters and commentators talk — showing ISIL at the peak of its strength last summer.

“We are urging broadcasters to avoid using the familiar B-roll that we’ve all seen before, file footage of ISIL convoys operating in broad daylight, moving in large formations with guns out, looking to wreak havoc,” said Emily Horne, spokeswoman for retired Gen. John Allen, the State Department’s special envoy leading the international coalition against ISIL.

“It’s inaccurate — that’s no longer how ISIL moves,” Horne said. “A lot of that footage is from last summer before we began tactical strikes.”

Via: WFB

Continue Reading..... 

[VIDEO] US military pilots complain hands tied in ‘frustrating’ fight against ISIS

U.S. military pilots carrying out the air war against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria are voicing growing discontent over what they say are heavy-handed rules of engagement hindering them from striking targets.

They blame a bureaucracy that does not allow for quick decision-making. One Navy F-18 pilot who has flown missions against ISIS voiced his frustration to Fox News, saying: "There were times I had groups of ISIS fighters in my sights, but couldn't get clearance to engage.”

He added, “They probably killed innocent people and spread evil because of my inability to kill them. It was frustrating."

Sources close to the air war against ISIS told Fox News that strike missions take, on average, just under an hour, from a pilot requesting permission to strike an ISIS target to a weapon leaving the wing.

A spokesman for the U.S. Air Force’s Central Command pushed back: “We refute the idea that close air support strikes take 'an hour on average'. Depending on the how complex the target environment is, a strike could take place in less than 10 minutes or it could take much longer.

"As our leaders have said, this is a long-term fight, and we will not alienate civilians, the Iraqi government or our coalition partners by striking targets indiscriminately."

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

[VIDEO] Islamic State In Syria Executes Man Using Rocket Propelled Grenade…

The caveman in charge of this is an Albanian man named Lavdrim Muhaxheri.

Via: Weasel Zippers

Continue Reading.....

Hill leaders: Terror threat growing in US; intel community not the 'bad guys'

The worldwide terror threat is growing and changing, making Americans less safe than they were in years past, the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees said Sunday.

“Terror is up worldwide,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “The statistics indicate that. The fatalities are way up.”

Feinstein made her comments on CNN’s “State of the Union” during a joint interview with Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, who argued the terror group Al Qaeda continues to grow and consolidate.

“What's happening in places like Syria [is] that you have a pooling of Al Qaeda and affiliates. …  Groups have changed the way they communicate, which means it's less likely that we're going to be able to detect something prior to an event.”

Rogers also suggested that public scrutiny over U.S. intelligence work, brought on by recent disclosures about the efforts of the National Security Agency and others, has hurt anti-terror efforts.

“We’re fighting amongst ourselves here in this country about the role of our intelligence community,” he said. “That is having an impact on our ability to stop what is a growing number of threats. Our intelligence community isn’t the bad guys.”

Via: Fox News

Continue Reading....

Dangerous Times: A Looming Strategic Disaster in the Middle East.

If you think ObamaCare is bad, just wait till you hear the new "peace" agreement that is due to be imposed on the Middle East over the coming weeks. Even if it works, a giant if, it will make the world much more dangerous:

1. Iran will have nuclear weapons, or it will be balanced right on the edge -- within one month or less to make nukes.

2. Saudi Arabia and Egypt will go nuclear, to balance Iran.

3. America's role as a guarantor of peace will be blown, crushed by Obama's betrayal of Israel and the Arabs. America's nuclear umbrella, which has kept world from major war since 1949, was always based on trust. Once you blow that trust, the umbrella disappears.

4. The coming victory of Bashar Assad in Syria, supported by Hizb'allah and Iran, will forge the much-feared Shii'ite Crescent that surrounds Israel and directly threatens Arab nations like Egypt, Iraq and the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states).

5. Russia will replace America as a more trustworthy major power in the region, including the Eastern Mediterranean.

This is not a framework for peace. It is an unstable Rube Goldberg contraption that could lead to total war in a matter of weeks. It will never have the long-term stability of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty of the last forty years. On top of all those balancing acts, Israel will be driven back to borders that are much more vulnerable to Muslim terrorism. World conquest is a basic premise of Islam, and it includes Europe, Russia, and America.

Via: American Thinker

Continue Reading....

Uniting the Right - Freedom is the idea that can bring our fractious movement together.

Anyone who pays attention to politics can see that when Democrats attack, they speak from the same text, and when they vote, they march in lockstep. If one Democrat says the wealthy must pay their “fair share,” all Democrats do — regardless of the merits of the charge. If their leaders say Republicans want to shut down the government in order to deny Americans affordable care, the rest of the party will follow their lead — whether the claim is true or not. When a key program like Obamacare is the issue, not only do Democrats back it with one voice, but every player on the political left — journalists, professors, talk-show hosts, union heads, MoveOn radicals, and Occupy anarchists — falls into line and promotes it with virtually identical words. They act in “solidarity” in fair political weather and foul, and they do it even for a program like Obamacare, which (as some of them must surely see) is ill-conceived, falsely presented, incompetently executed, and fiscally unsustainable.

When the voices of the Left all come together, the amplification is stupefying. The result is that a morally bankrupt, politically tyrannical, economically destructive party is able to set the course of an entire nation and put it on the road to disaster.

Republicans, in contrast, speak with multiple voices, and in words that often have no relation to each other. If one Republican says “defund Obamacare,” another says, “fund the government,” even if that might mean funding Obamacare. The argument and the dissension are over tactics, not substance, since all Republicans oppose Obamacare. If one Republican says “don’t intervene in Syria,” another says “don’t hesitate”; if one says “Obama-supported immigration reform is a dagger aimed at American sovereignty,” another says “opposition to immigration reform is a death-knell for our party.” This, again, is a tactical division, since all Republicans support enforceable borders.

Via: NRO

Continue Reading.....

NBC/WSJ poll: Obama approval sinks to new low

President Barack Obama’s approval rating has declined to an all-time low as public frustration with Washington and pessimism about the nation’s direction continue to grow, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Just 42 percent approve of the president’s job performance, which is down five points from earlier this month. By comparison, 51 percent disapprove of his job in office -- tied for his all-time high.

Kevin Lamarque / Reuters

President Barack Obama speaks about health insurance at Faneuil Hall in Boston.

The NBC/WSJ pollsters argue that no single reason explains Obama’s lower poll standing. Rather, they attribute it to the accumulation of setbacks since the summer -- allegations of spying by the National Security Agency, the debate over Syria’s chemical weapons, the government shutdown and now intense scrutiny over the problems associated with the health care law’s federal website and its overall implementation.

Those events have combined to erase some of the advantage the president gained with polls showing most Americans blame congressional Republicans for the shutdown.Read the full poll here (.pdf)

Via: NBC News

Continue Reading.....

Obama’s Uncertain Path Amid Syria Bloodshed

WASHINGTON — With rebel forces in Syria in retreat and the Obama administration’s policy toward the war-ravaged country in disarray, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived at the White House Situation Room one day in June with a document bearing a warning. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria had used chemical weapons against his people, the document said, and if the United States did not “impose consequences,” Mr. Assad would see it as a “green light for continued CW use.”

President Obama had signed a secret order in April — months earlier than previously reported — authorizing a C.I.A. plan to begin arming the Syrian rebels. But the arms had not been shipped, and the collapse of rebel positions in western Syria fueled the atmosphere of crisis that hung over the June meeting.

Yet after hours of debate in which top advisers considered a range of options, including military strikes and increased support to the rebels, the meeting ended the way so many attempts to define a Syrian strategy had ended in the past, with the president’s aides deeply divided over how to respond to a civil war that had already claimed 100,000 lives.

The State Department’s June warning, laid out in a document obtained by The New York Times, proved to be prophetic. A devastating poison gas attack on Aug. 21 killed hundreds of civilians, touching off a crisis that brought the United States close to launching military strikes in Syria and that ended only when Mr. Obama seized on a Russian-sponsored agreement to secure Syria’s chemical weapons.

Now, two years after Mr. Obama publicly declared that Mr. Assad had to go, he is banking on the success of that Russian-initiated plan — which relies on Mr. Assad’s cooperation and which the Syrian president offered in a recent interview as a convenient shield against American intervention.

Via: NYT

Continue Reading.....