The Anti-Empire Report #120
September 3rd, 2013
Found at last! After searching for 10 years, the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction have finally been found – in Syria!
Secretary of State John Kerry: “There is no doubt that Saddam al-Assad has crossed the red line. … Sorry, did I just say
A US drone has just taken a photo of Mullah Omar riding on a motorcycle through the streets of Damascus.
So what do we have as the United States refuses to rule out an attack on Syria and keeps five warships loaded with
missiles in the eastern Mediterranean?
• Only 9 percent of Americans support a US military intervention in Syria.
• Only 11% of the British supported a UK military intervention; this increased to 25% after the announcement of
the alleged chemical attack.
• British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a parliamentary vote August 29 endorsing military action against Syria
• 64% of the French people oppose an intervention by the French Army. “Before acting we need proof,” said a French
• Former and current high-ranking US military officers question the use of military force as a punitive measure
and suggest that the White House lacks a coherent strategy. “If the administration is ambivalent about the wisdom of
defeating or crippling the Syrian leader, possibly setting the stage for Damascus to fall to Islamic fundamentalist
rebels, they say, the military objective of strikes on Assad’s military targets is at best ambiguous.”
• President Obama has no United Nations approval for intervention. (In February a massive bombing attack in
Damascus left 100 dead and 250 wounded; in all likelihood the work of Islamic terrorists. The United States blocked a
Russian resolution condemning the attack from moving through the UN Security Council)
• None of NATO’s 28 members has proposed an alliance with the United States in an attack against Syria. NATO’s
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that he saw “no NATO role in an international reaction to the [Syrian]
• The Arab League has not publicly endorsed support of US military action in Syria; nor have key regional players
Saudi Arabia and Qatar, concerned about a possible public backlash from open support for US intervention.
• We don’t even know for sure that there was a real chemical attack. Where does that accusation come from? The
United States? The al-Qaeda rebels? Or if there was such an attack, where is the evidence that the Syrian government was
the perpetrator? The Assad regime has accused the rebels of the act, releasing a video showing a cave with alleged
chemical-weapon equipment as well as claiming to have captured rebels possessing sarin gas. Whoever dispensed the poison
gas – why, in this age of ubiquitous cameras, are there no photos of anyone wearing a gas mask? The UN inspection team
was originally dispatched to Syria to investigate allegations of earlier chemical weapons use: two allegations made by
the rebels and one by the government.
• The United States insists that Syria refused to allow the UN investigators access to the site of the attack.
However, the UN request was made Saturday, August 24; the Syrian government agreed the next day.
• In rejecting allegations that Syria deployed poison gas, Russian officials have argued that the rebels had a
clear motivation: to spur a Western-led attack on Syrian forces; while Assad had every reason to avoid any action that
could spur international intervention at a time when his forces were winning the war and the rebels are increasingly
losing world support because of their uncivilized and ultra-cruel behavior.
• President George W. Bush misled the world on Iraq’s WMD, but Bush’s bogus case for war at least had details that
could be checked, unlike what the Obama administration released August 29 on Syria’s alleged chemical attacks – no
direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named sources, nothing but “trust us,” points out Robert Parry, intrepid
So, in light of all of the above, the path for Mr. Obama to take – as a rational, humane being – is of course clear. Is
it not? N’est-ce pas? Nicht wahr? – Bombs Away!
Pretty discouraging it is. No, I actually find much to be rather encouraging. So many people seem to have really learned
something from the Iraqi pile of lies and horror and from decades of other American interventions. Skepticism – good ol’
healthy skepticism – amongst the American, British and French people. It was stirring to watch the British Parliament in
a debate of the kind rarely, if ever, seen in the 21st-century US Congress. And American military officers asking some
of the right questions. The Arab League not supporting a US attack, surprising for an organization not enamored of the
secular Syrian government. And NATO – even NATO! – refusing so far to blindly fall in line with the White House. When
did that last happen? I thought it was against international law.
Secretary of State John Kerry said that if the United States did not respond to the use of chemical weapons the country
would become an international “laughingstock”. Yes, that’s really what America and its people have to worry about – not
that their country is viewed as a lawless, mass-murdering repeat offender. Other American officials have expressed
concern that a lack of a US response might incite threats from Iran and North Korea.
Now that is indeed something to laugh at. It’s comforting to think that the world might be finally losing the stars in
their eyes about US foreign policy partly because of countless ridiculous remarks such as these.
United States bombings, which can be just as indiscriminate and cruel as poison gas. (A terrorist is someone who has a
bomb but doesn’t have an air force.)
The glorious bombing list of our glorious country, which our glorious schools don’t teach, our glorious media don’t
remember, and our glorious leaders glorify.
• Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
• Guatemala 1954
• Indonesia 1958
• Cuba 1959-1961
• Guatemala 1960
• Congo 1964
• Laos 1964-73
• Vietnam 1961-73
• Cambodia 1969-70
• Guatemala 1967-69
• Grenada 1983
• Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
• Libya 1986
• El Salvador 1980s
• Nicaragua 1980s
• Iran 1987
• Panama 1989
• Iraq 1991 (Persian Gulf War)
• Kuwait 1991
• Somalia 1993
• Bosnia 1994, 1995
• Sudan 1998
• Afghanistan 1998
• Yugoslavia 1999
• Yemen 2002
• Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular no-fly-zone basis)
• Iraq 2003-2011 (Second Gulf War)
• Afghanistan 2001 to present
• Pakistan 2007 to present
• Somalia 2007-8, 2011 to present
• Yemen 2009, 2011 to present
• Libya 2011
• Syria 2013?
The above list doesn’t include the repeated use by the United States of depleted uranium, cluster bombs, white
phosphorous, and other charming inventions of the Pentagon mad scientists; also not included: chemical and biological
weapons abroad, chemical and biological weapons in the United States (sic), and encouraging the use of chemical and
biological weapons by other nations; all these lists can be found in William Blum’s book “Rogue State: A Guide to the
World’s Only Superpower”.
A story just released by Foreign Policy magazine, based on newly-discovered classified documents, reports how, in 1988, the last year of the 8-year Iraq-Iran
War, America’s military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks by
Iraq far more devastating than anything Syria has seen. Indeed, during that war the United States was the primary
supplier to Iraq of the chemicals and hardware necessary to provide the Saddam Hussein regime with a chemical-warfare
Now, apparently, the United States has discovered how horrible chemical warfare is, even if only of the “alleged”
Some of those currently advocating bombing Syria turn for justification to their old faithful friend “humanitarian
intervention”, one of the earliest examples of which was the 1999 US and NATO bombing campaign to stop ethnic cleansing
and drive Serbian forces from Kosovo. However, a collective amnesia appears to have afflicted countless intelligent,
well-meaning people, who are convinced that the US/NATO bombing took place after the mass forced deportation of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo was well underway; which is to say that the bombing was
launched to stop this “ethnic cleansing”. In actuality, the systematic forced deportations of large numbers of people from Kosovo did
not begin until a few days after the bombing began, and was clearly a Serbian reaction to it, born of extreme anger and
powerlessness. This is easily verified by looking at a daily newspaper for the few days before the bombing began the
night of March 23/24, and the few days after. Or simply look at the New York Times of March 26, page 1, which reads:
… with the NATO bombing already begun, a deepening sense of fear took hold in Pristina [the main city of Kosovo] that
the Serbs would NOW vent their rage against ethnic Albanian civilians in retaliation.
On March 27, we find the first reference to a “forced march” or anything of that sort.
But the propaganda version is already set in marble.
If you see something, say something. Unless it’s US war crimes.
“When you sign a security clearance and swear oaths, you actually have to abide by that. It is not optional.” – Steven Bucci, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, speaking of Chelsea Manning (formerly known as Bradley)
Really? No matter what an individual with security clearance is asked to do? No matter what he sees and knows of, he
still has to ignore his conscience and follow orders? But Steven, my lad, you must know that following World War II many
Germans of course used “following orders” as an excuse. The victorious Allies of course executed many of them.
Their death sentences were laid down by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany, which declared that
“Individuals have international duties which transcend the national obligations of obedience. Therefore individual
citizens have the duty to violate domestic laws to prevent crimes against peace and humanity from occurring.”
Nuremberg Principle IV moreover states: “The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a
superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible
Manning, and Edward Snowden as well, did have moral choices, and they chose them.
It should be noted that Barack Obama has refused to prosecute those under the Bush administration involved in torture
specifically – he declares – because they were following orders. Has this “educated” man never heard of the Nuremberg
Tribunal? Why isn’t he embarrassed to make this argument again and again?
I imagine that in the past three years that Manning has had to live with solitary confinement, torture and humiliation,
adding mightily to her already existing personal difficulties, the thought of suicide has crossed her mind on a number
of occasions. It certainly would have with me if I had been in her position. In the coming thousands and thousands of
days and long nights of incarceration such thoughts may be Manning’s frequent companion. If the thoughts become desire,
and the desire becomes unbearable, I hope the brave young woman can find a way to carry it out. Every person has that
right, including heroes.
The United States and its European poodles may have gone too far for their own good in their attempts to control all
dissenting communication – demanding total information from companies engaged in encrypted messaging, forcing the
closure of several such firms, obliging the plane carrying the Bolivian president to land, smashing the computers at a
leading newspaper, holding a whistle-blowing journalist’s partner in custody for nine hours at an airport, seizing the
phone records of Associated Press journalists, threatening to send a New York Times reporter to jail if he doesn’t disclose the source of a leak, shameless lying at high levels, bugging the European
Union and the United Nations, surveillance without known limits … Where will it end? Will it backfire at some point and
allow America to return to its normal level of police state? On July 24, a bill that would have curtailed the power of
the NSA was only narrowly defeated by 217 to 205 votes in the US House of Representatives.
And how long will Amnesty International continue to tarnish its image by refusing to state the obvious? That Cheleas
Manning is a Prisoner of Conscience. If you go to Amnesty’s website and search “prisoner of conscience” you’ll find many
names given, including several Cubans prominently featured. Can there be any connection to Manning’s omission with the
fact that the executive director of Amnesty International USA, Suzanne Nossel, came to her position from the US
Department of State, where she served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Organizations?
A phone call to Amnesty’s office in New York was unable to provide me with any explanation for Manning’s omission. I
suggest that those of you living in the UK try the AI headquarters in London.
Meanwhile, at the other pre-eminent international human rights organization, Human Rights Watch, Tom Malinowski, the
director of HRW’s Washington office, has been nominated by Obama to be Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human
Rights and Labor. Is it really expecting too much that a high official of a human rights organization should not go to
work for a government that has been the world’s leading violator of human rights for more than half a century? And if
that designation is too much for you to swallow just consider torture, the worst example of mankind’s inhumanity to man.
What government has been intimately involved with that horror more than the United States? Teaching it, supplying the
manuals, supplying the equipment, creation of torture centers in much of the world, kidnaping people to these places
(“rendition”), solitary confinement, forced feeding, Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Chicago …
Lord forgive us!
One of the reactions of the United States to Russia granting asylum to Edward Snowden was reported thus: “There was a
blistering response on Capitol Hill and calls for retaliatory measures certain to infuriate the Kremlin. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.), long one of the Senate’s leading critics of Moscow, blasted the asylum decision as ‘a slap in the face
of all Americans’ and called on the administration to turn up the pressure on Moscow on a variety of fronts, including a
renewed push for NATO expansion and new missile-defense programs in Europe.”
But we’ve long been told that NATO expansion and its missiles in Europe have nothing to do with Russia. And Russia has
been told the same, much to Moscow’s continuous skepticism. “Look,” said Russian president Vladimir Putin about NATO in
2001, “this is a military organization. It’s moving towards our border. Why?” He subsequently described NATO as “the
stinking corpse of the cold war.”
We’ve been told repeatedly by the US government that the missiles are for protection against an Iranian attack. Is it
(choke) possible that the Bush and Obama administrations have been (gasp) lying to us?
America’s love affair with Guns
Adam Kokesh is a veteran of the war in Iraq who lives in the Washington, DC area. He’s one of the countless Americans
who’s big on guns, guns that will be needed to protect Americans from their oppressive government, guns that will be
needed for “the revolution”.
On July 4 the 31-year-old Kokesh had a video made of himself holding a shotgun and loading shells into it while speaking
into the camera as he stood in Freedom Plaza, a federal plot of land in between the Washington Monument and the Capitol.
This led to a police raid of his home and his being arrested on the 25th for carrying a firearm outside his home or
office. The 23-second video can be seen on YouTube.
I sent Kokesh the following email:
“Adam: All your weapons apparently didn’t help you at all when the police raided your house. But supposedly, people like
you advocate an armed populace to protect the public from an oppressive government. I’ve never thought that that made
much sense because of the huge imbalance between the military power of the public vs. that of the government. And it
seems that I was correct.”
I received no reply, although his still being in jail may explain that.
Kokesh, incidentally, had a program on RT (Russia Today) for a short while last year.