This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Brennan: "I'm saying it's because of an al Qaeda organization that used the banner of religion in a very perverse and corrupt way."
Thomas: "Why?"
Brennan: "I think this is a -- long issue, but al Qaeda is just determined to carry out attacks here against the homeland."
Thomas: "But you haven't explained why."
Neither has President Obama, or anyone else in the U.S. political/media hierarchy. All the American public gets is boilerplate about how al-Qaeda evildoers are perverting a religion and exploiting impressionable young men. There is almost no discussion about why so many people in the Muslim world object to U.S. policies so strongly that they are inclined to resist violently and even resort to suicide attacks.
It is the same now. Lacking is any frank discussion by America's leaders and media about the real motivation of Muslim anger toward the United States? Why was Helen Thomas the only journalist to raise the touchy but central question of motive? But I digress.
The Almost-War on Syria
Why did Kerry mislead the world on August 30 in professing to "know" that the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical attack near Damascus on August 21? It is crystal clear that he did not know. Typically, Kerry adduced no verifiable evidence, and what his minions leaked over the following weeks could not bear close scrutiny. (See Robert Parry's "The Collapsing Syria-Sarin Case.")
(Parenthetically, Kerry also does not know what he professes to know about the shoot-down of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17.)
The key question at this point is whether Gen. Dempsey can hold off the hawks at the State Department, as he did a year ago to prevent an ready-to-go U.S. attack on Syria ... or maybe Iraq again ... or how about Ukraine.
Late last summer, Dempsey had the good sense to be a reluctant soldier. He had already told Congress that a major attack on Syria should require congressional authorization, and he was aware that the "evidence" adduced to implicate the Syrian government could not pass the smell test. Besides, British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn't match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army's chemical weapons arsenal.
The British warning that the case against Syria wouldn't hold up was quickly relayed to the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. According to Seymour Hersh, American officers delivered a last-minute caution to the President, which they believe led to his cancelling the attack. (See "The Red Line and the Rat Line.")
Actually, it was no secret that Dempsey helped change the President's mind between when Kerry spoke on the afternoon of August 30, all but promising a U.S. attack on Syria, and when President Barack Obama announced less than a day later that he would not attack but rather would seek authorization from Congress. Obama was explicit in "blaming" Dempsey, saying on the early afternoon of August 31:
"Our military has positions assets in the region. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has informed me that we are prepared to strike whenever we choose. Moreover, the Chairman has indicated to me that our capacity to execute this mission is not time-sensitive: it will be effective tomorrow, next week, or one month from now."
This, of course, was a major defeat for those, primarily the neocons, who wanted war with Syria. By happenstance, I was given a personal window into their distress at CNN's main studio in Washington. (See: "How War on Syria Lost Its Way.")
How About Ukraine? ... Syria ... or Perhaps Iraq Again?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
4
4
2
