RT Op-Edge: Why Obama’s ‘red line’ in Syria has turned pink

RT Op-Edge
Patrick Henningsen

Back in August 2012, things were a lot different in Washington DC and in the White House…

The Obama administration was brandishing a confident swagger back then, heading into the elections against a hobbling GOP opponent, and Benghazi had yet to unfold in all of its ugliness.

Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013. (AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)

Syrian army soldiers take control of the village of Western Dumayna, some seven kilometers north of the rebel-held city of Qusayr on May 13, 2013. (AFP Photo / Joseph Eid)

As Hillary Clinton was jetting around on the US State Department budget promoting her ‘Friends of Syria’ Middle East and European tours, and as the CIA were busy like bees working in the gray shadows of Benghazi, Washington and London were laying the groundwork for their new WMD case is Syria.

As last summer drew to a close, President Barack Obama confidently announced he was drawing a ‘Red Line’ in Syria regarding the use of chemical weapons, meaning that any evidence of their use on either side of that conflict would lead to consequences, the obvious inference being automatic US military intervention.

Fast forward to the present, and Washington appears to have been caught in the vortex of its own spin machine, with White House Press Secretary Jay Carney recently forced to ‘clarify’ the President’s infamous ‘Red Line’ decree with what can only be described as desperate political cover. Here Carney attempted to explain away the previous ultimatum and re-explain the President’s position:

“What the president made clear is that it was a red line, and that it was unacceptable, and that it would change his calculus… What he never did – and it is simplistic to do so is to say that ‘if X happens, Y will happen’. He has never said what reaction he would take.”

It’s hard to run a global empire and still pander to sensitive liberal concerns at home. The White House seems to be at pains coming to terms with what the Neoconservative Bush government already knew a decade ago – that there really is no good, safe way to do a military intervention. In the end, the façade of political spin cannot provide ethical cover for invading and toppling another sovereign state. You can’t finesse your way into it, you have to just go for it in full view – lie if you have to, fabricate evidence if need be, and be damned with the political fallout…

Read more at RT

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

Top U.S. Official says U.N. Human Rights Monitor, 9/11 Truther Must Go

21st Century Wire says… A call for the dismissal of an American scholar who no longer fits the narrative? An obvious choice. What’s less clear is just how controversial Prof. Falk’s comments are purported to be, in light of the fact U.S. policies of occupation and nation-building around the world have been a well-known source of animosity.

Oliver Knox
Yahoo! News

Jessica Rinaldi/ReutersA top U.S. official called on Wednesday for the United Nations to fire a human rights advocate who implied that the Boston Marathon bombings were payback for America’s “geopolitical fantasy of global domination” and its friendship with Israel.

“Outraged by Richard Falk’s highly offensive Boston comments. Someone who spews such vitriol has no place at the UN. Past time for him to go,” the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., Susan Rice, said on Twitter.

Rice was responding to an essay that Falk, who is U.N. special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, wrote in Foreign Policy Journal. In it, Falk warns against “darkly glamorizing” the Boston bombings “with flowers and homage” and seems to say the U.S. brought the attacks on itself.

“The American global domination project is bound to generate all kinds of resistance in the post-colonial world,” Falk said. “In some respects the United States has been fortunate not to experience worse blowbacks, and these may yet happen, especially if there is no disposition to rethink US relations to others in the world, starting with the Middle East.”

“We should be asking ourselves at this moment, ‘how many canaries will have to die before we awaken from our geopolitical fantasy of global domination?’” Falk wrote.

The U.N. official also condemned President Barack Obama’s March 21 speech in Jerusalem as “a love letter to the Israeli public rather than qualifying as a good faith effort to demonstrate his belief in a just peace.

“The war drums are beating at this moment in relation to both North Korea and Iran, and as long as Tel Aviv has the compliant ear of the American political establishment those who wish for peace and justice in the world should not rest easy,” he said.

Falk said he thought he detected “a few hopeful signs of awakening” in Americans asking whether policies like targeted assassination using drones might be turning other peoples against the United States.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest

Globalist Susan Rice Withdraws from Secretary of State Bid Over Opposition

21st Century Wire says: It was CFR member Susan Rice who helped to pushed NATO’s No-Fly-Zone in Libya over the goal line in 2011 when she claimed at a crucial UN diplomatic meeting that Gadaffi’s armed forces were “issuing viagra to soldiers so that they go out and rape”. This places her in the same  category as Tony Blair, George Bush and others who didn’t let the truth get in the way of their execution of illegal wars. Guardian Susan Rice, the embattled US ambassador to the United Nations,withdrew herself from consideration to replace Hillary Clinton as secretary of state in the face of sustained Republican attacks over her handling of the Benghazi consulate attack. Although Rice insisted the decision had been hers alone and that she was not pushed by the Obama administration, it provides the Republicans with an early victory barely a month after the presidential election… Read more here  facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterest