Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, October 21, 2005

US propaganda about Syria: A case study in Republican tyranny

After the Iraq disaster, the US learned not to go it alone.

What better way to mobilize the world community, than to focus on a flawed report, and distract attention from whether that approach should be applied to the United States.

Follow-up to this report.

* * *

It is interesting to contrast the UN report about the Lebanese Prime Minister; and contrast it with how the US allowed others to review 9-11 and the Iraq WMD.

If we are to believe the implications of the UN report about Syria, then we have to ask why the US is not willing to let the same type of analysis be applied to the US in re 9-11, Able Danger, Iraq WMD, and allegations of American war crimes.

The short answer is that the non-sense used prior to the invasion of Iraq is being used again, but this time with the entire world willing to join the chorus. What's interesting is to understand what's changed since the days when vocal opposition to the US non-sense was not simply encouraged, hut warranted US Administration fear.

Today, that opposition is silent as the world has been mobilized to focus on another scapegoat. Notice who isn't having these same rules applied to their conduct, and you'll know who benefits from this latest mania: The United States.

* * *

The US is using the UN report about the Lebanese Prime Minister Assassination as a cover for flawed plans, just at it did in re Iraq.

There are two general areas which are problematic in the UN approach to Syria.

First is the military; and second, is the nature of the investigation. I shall deal with the military situation and show that the US is doing more of what it did prior to the 2002-3 propaganda in re Iraqi WMD.

Second I shall show that if the “logical implications of the UN report about the Syrian Ambassador’s assassination” were applied to the US, the US would also be guilty of being behind 9-11.

The first thing to notice is that the US is shifting the center of gravity for the regional instability from Iraq to Syria. However, this is at odds with what we know to be true. By the US entering Iraq, the region is less stable; and the axis of evil that supposedly was centered in Iraq would suddenly shift, despite the US presence, to another country.

Let’s consider the reasons for the US invading Iraq. Saddam: Source of all evil. We are asked to believe that, despite Saddam being removed from power, that the US presence in the region is a “force of good,” but the US is unable to contain the evil to Iraq.

Rather, we are asked to believe that the US, by its mere presence, had a kind of “splash pattern effect” and sent all the problems from Iraq to Syria.

That implies the US drove out the problem from Iraq, and forced it into a single country. This also presumes that the problem was actually in Iraq.

To suggest the US can take unilateral action, make a mess of things, but then magically shift “all the bad things and all the source of bad things” to a specific location would have us embrace non-sense.

The US cannot, on its own, have the demonstrated ability to fail to plan to organize Iraq; while at the same time have some sort of mystical power to centrally direct that all evil things be moved from Iraq to Syria. The US cannot at the same time, have a demonstrated ability to botch things; but at the same time, without any plan, cause all mystical evil things to move from Iraq to Syria. The US cannot claim to have caused this shift, while at the same time demonstrating it is incapable of handing something as simple as a plan to upgrade electricity.

Again, what is happening is the US, because of its failures, is asking the enemy be assigned with mystical powers. This is far too convenient.

The US cannot claim “no responsibility for real problems with planning,” while at the same time assigning some supernatural ability to this vague notion of evil; then pretend that it is floating around, but moving to a specific location, because of some US presence.

Scenario 1

Ether the US presence is able to achieve results [which it is not]; and should be able to go after specifically trained individuals who are under the command of a single training entity. However, the results show the opposite: Despite the US hoping the world believes it is able to achieve change, the US is incapable of going after insurgents who have a common training program. The issue isn’t that the US can’t attack Syria or the common element; it is the opposite: There is no common training program which the US can credibly argue it is fighting.

Scenario 2

Or the US presence is not able to achieve results [which it isn’t]; and therefore the US cannot claim that the US presence is causing the problems to move form a specific location to a second specific location

However, this is problematic in that it asks us to believe that the ineffectual US, which can’t achieve results on the ground, can somehow move and direct some mystical force which acts like a cloud lingering over Syria.

This is non-sense. One cannot claim that an organization like the US which cannot achieve results, can then turn around and claim to be the catalyst which moves this forces from one location to another.

The issue isn’t that the training has or hasn’t moved from Iraq to Syria. The issue is that the non-centrally controlled insurgents are not moving in a single way; and the US is not capable of effectively combating that which is outmaneuvering the US. This is not something the US can blame on the Syrians, but is something that lies with the White House: there are not enough troops on the ground to maintain security.

How did this evil conveniently shift to another region; or was it actually there at all?

Moving argument on who is in control of training. One on hand we are asked to believe that the insurgents are not predictable; but if they were centrally trained in Syria, then they would be acting and moving in a single way. Self-evidently, the US is not able to counteract their training, nor can the US take their training approach, and develop a single effective strategy to prevail.

The answer isn’t that the US is defecting in developing a strategy. The answer is that the US is not fighting a single, centrally-trained insurgent force; nor is that force centrally trained under the control of Syria.

Lack of training, consolidated effort demonstrates that the US is looking for an excuse to impose sanctions on Syria, blame all the US problems in Iraq on Syria, and do to Syria what the US did to Iraq and Cambodia: Chase ghosts as a pretext to “do something” about what the US cannot actually do: Prevail.

* * *

Let’s consider the big celebration after the US invaded Iraq. Supposedly the US defeated the insurgents and wiped them out.

Now the US wants us to believe that this force that they supposedly subdued in Afghanistan has reappeared like a mushroom in two places: Iraq and Syria.

Supposedly things were wiped out. How can a wiped out force and approach to fighting suddenly appear? Then it’s not wiped out; or it’s not related. If it’s not related, then one cannot link the situation in Afghanistan or 9-11 with what is or isn’t happening in either Iraq or Syria.

Thus, we can’t go to the UN and say, “The problem we had after 9-11 has now spread into Syria.” The real problem is that the US has not solved the problems in either Afghanistan or Iraq; and is hoping to blame the failures in Iraq on another scapegoat: Syria.

* * *

It’s all fine and good to suggest the source of instability in Iraq is or isn’t related to a specific training plan, or centrally controlled plan.

But let’s consider something: The US has a centrally controlled system. Why isn’t the US, as it would ask we believe about Syria, not assigning to its own DoD, the same responsibility it assigns to Syria: Responsibility for the failures in Iraq.

It is curious that despite the ability to actually influence things, DoD isn’t taking the same responsibility for the failures in Iraq; rather, this responsibility is shifted from DoD to Syria.

* * *

DoD and the White House cannot decide whether the insurgency is centrally located or is not. Nor can it decide whether the insurgency is centrally located or is not; nor can it decide whether the insurgency can be effectively undermined or not.

We Changing notion on whether centrally controlled or not

How can the insurgents that were supposedly centrally located in Uzbekistan, be divided; while at the same time a centrally controlled insurgency can be devoid of a single training strategy, which the US is not undermining;

How can this centrally controlled body not be effectively destroyed; but it has now shifted from one region to Another?

How can something that is not centrally controlled, and cannot be divided, magically move from one location in Uzbekistan or Afghanistan and be controlled from Syria?

Why unable to specifically counter act a specific training approach?

* * *

It’s a great leap to suggest Syria is training forces in Iraq. If this is true, why can’t the US simply combat a “single training strategy?” If Syria is truly “in control” of the training, then the trainees would have a single approach, which could be easily overcome by the far superior US army with its vast resources.

Indeed, the US intelligence system “should” be able to quickly communicate the “single” Syrian approach; and the able US army should be able to develop a counter-strategy to this “single Syrian training strategy.”

But the truth is opposite: The US is not fighting a conventional army with a single source of training. Rather, despite the attacks in Afghanistan, the training camps were not wiped out.

Moreover, we continue to hear that there are a “massive number of foreign fighters,” yet why is there a disagreement over the numbers. Some suggest that the number of foreign fighters is about 10%. At most, under this scenario, Syria would be at best 10% responsible; but this does nothing to specifically prove that Syria is at all responsible for the other 90% of the fighters.

The other problem with the argument is the notion of whether Iraq is or is not connected with AlQueda. How does Iraq, that wasn’t connected with AlQueda, suddenly turn around and say “We’re not connected with AlQueda, but everyone else is.”

That’s too convenient. Because this implies that the centrally located command and control [that doesn’t exist] has moved from one illusory location to something that is specific.

Recall, prior to the invasion of Iraq, BushCo argued that AlQueda was connected to Iraq. This has proven problematic.

Also, there was the argument that Uzbekistan was suffering because of insurgents; while at the same time the US would have, at the time, believe the AlQueda forces that were rising up in Uzbekistan were going down a different route. This has been shown to be propaganda: Because the underlying problem with AlQueda is that it was never centrally controlled, but simply a list of people who were working on their own.

Thus, one cannot say that a loosely organized system suddenly shifts to a central region; nor can that loose system then come together, and then be subsequently divided. This would ask that we believe that the loosely organized system, is somehow able to bend and meld itself in the wind without any control; while at the same time despite this lack of control, is moving as if it were a single entity that can be easily overcome by dividing it.

That’s fiction and asks us to assign far too many powers and abilities to a loosely organized entity: It is the same as assigning the cause of all problems to the illusory ghosts that are running around.

These are human problems; and one cannot assign responsibility to organizations that move in ways that defy human nature. This would ask us to assign some sort of mystical power to AlQueda and the insurgents. That is the stuff of desperate leaders who cannot achieve results, and seek to find convenient scapegoats.

* * *

Let’s consider the second half of the problem: The nature of the investigation and the rules of evidence.

The UN investigation wasn’t a criminal investigation. The rules of evidence are different.

We see nothing before us which states that there has been a specific finding of wrong doing; merely allegations.

Nor is there evidence which would warrant a criminal investigation.

Syria hasn’t been specifically charged with a crime; rather, it has been accused of being involved. However, this accusation could easily be applied to the United States.

Thus, at this point to use the accusation as a basis to hold Syria accountable, would ask that we rely on non-criminal evidence, to make a finding of fact that could be just as easily be applied to any other nation in Echelon.

Burden of proof rests with the accusatory body. At this point, we have no evidence, just a reference to a conversation.

When one is doing a non-criminal investigation in the UN, we are not saying that all parties are required to cooperate. Rather, the purpose of the investigation was simply to gather facts of what most likely happened.

Thus, for someone to assert that there has been a lack of cooperation is a stretch. Indeed, if the Syrians believe, as did the Iraqis, that the US and UN are going to arrive at a conclusion, why cooperate with something that is going to be a fabrication.

Under an administrative inquiry a lack of cooperation can bring sanctions; but this isn’t an administrative inquiry into the UN. It’s an inquiry by the UN into something else.

The Syrians aren’t required to cooperate with an investigation that they assert they have nothing to do with. Thus, it is a leap to say that a non-required-cooperation or lack of cooperation is somehow evidence of the Syrians having a role.

This is a stretch. It asks that, if the same rule were to apply to the US, that the White House failure to timely cooperate in reviewing the inconsistencies in the 9-11 attacks, would amount to an obstruction of justice.

It is curious that the US would ask the Syrians to be subjected to one standard, while the US affords itself another: It’s OK to demand others cooperate, and characterize their “non cooperation” as an obstruction, therefore guilt; while at the same time, asserting the US has the right to “not cooperate” with the 9-11 commission on the grounds of national security.

Why does the US get the right to assert the right to sovereignty, national security, state secrets, and other privileges; but then deny this to the Syrians?

Why is the US’s conduct in re the 9-11 investigation not compared with the Syrian response to the Lebanese ambassador investigation?

Why is the US allowed to not cooperate with reviews into the Able Danger program; but then use the Syrian’s non cooperation as evidence of guilt. Surely, if the US is going to hold Syria accountable for “non cooperation,” then the “non cooperation” with Able Danger review should bring the same sanctions on the US. But we hear only excuses of that doesn’t matter, it’s not the same, and we don’t have to talk about it.

OK, if that’s true for the US, why are the Syrians guilty for doing the same thing as the US government? Either the US government, because of its lack of cooperation with the investigations into 9-11 and Able Danger, is at fault; or the Syrians and US are both not at fault because they have no requirement to cooperate with fact finding.

* * *

The problem the US has is that it wants to hold the Syrians accountable to standards of evidence that are beyond the reach of the current UN investigation.

It is one thing to have a criminal investigation with facts; it is a second to have a UN investigation to assess risks.

A criminal investigation has evidence; and when it gathers that evidence, it has the power to seize witnesses.

The UN investigation is the opposite: It wasn’t able to interview the Syrians. In a court of law, this “non information” is not admissible.

Thus, one cannot assert an “obstruction of justice” when there is no specific document, fact, or underlying truth that is known to be true, but the Syrians have hidden, destroyed, or prevented being discovered.

Also, the Syrians have yet to have demonstrated to them that they are required to do something more than the United States: The US officials in re 9-11 were quick to keep people silent. Yet, we are asked to believe that this “failure to provide witnesses” in re 9-11 is something that is acceptable.

On the contrary, the US will assert the “rule of discipline” as a justification to attack whistleblowers. Where there are no specific sanctions in the law for this retaliation, the courts will permit the abuse.

Who’s got a bigger problem? The US. For it’s system of approaching fact finding is at odds with the conclusions the US wants us to embrace about Syria.

* * *

Let’s turn the entire Assassination report into a mirror of what happened during 9-11. If we were to apply the same standards of evidence the US uses to accuse Syria of involvement; then we should also apply that same standard to 9-11.

Why isn’t a non-cooperation with the investigation the basis for indictments?

Why isn’t the failure to provide witnesses considered evidence of guilt?

Why isn’t the failure to explain considered proof of something?

Why isn’t the failure to control forces in one region considered proof that something else must be driving this problem?

If we were to apply the UN investigation results to the US, we would have to conclude that the failure of the US to cooperate with the 9-11 and Able Danger investigations is proof of a larger conspiracy; and that the US government, because it cannot explain everything is the cause of all that has gone wrong.

Moreover, if the US is unable to organize in the wake of Katrina and Iraq, then that failure of organization must be the link between disorganized troops and their discipline problems when it comes to torturing detainees in Abu Ghraib.

The US wants to hold the Syrian leadership accountable for the results; yet, why aren’t the results of Abu Ghraib also appli4d to the White House?

Why is the US using the non-criminal report as a basis to target the Syrian leadership; but a criminal investigation into US troop misconduct is not the basis to go after the White House for its failure to oversee and mitigate war crimes in Guantnaamo and Abu Ghraib?

If we are to embrace the UN report about the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister as true and credible; then the same rules should also be applied to hold the US leadership accountable for the failures of those who are under it.

We do not see that: We see a double standard.

If someone in Syria were to discuss doing something, why isn’t that conversation considered an isolated event, as we are to believe occurred in re Guantnaamo and Abu Ghraib torture?

Why is a conversation that the UN finds out about, something which Echelon cannot pick up?

If the Echelon is to be believed for what it is, then isn’t the failure to stop what was known evidence the US wanted the result to occur?

However, you answer the questions, what is clear is that there is a double standard on how we are reviewing the UN investigation into the Lebanese Ambassador assassination and how the US wants the world to embrace what was in the 9-11 commission report.

Either the investigation lessons from the UN apply to Syria and the US equally; or they are not. One cannot credibly ask us to make this many leaps of faith about Syria, and then command us to grovel on the ground and dare not consider the same implications in re the US and 9-11.

What is most outrageous is that the real catalyst for the RNC-NYPD attacks on the demonstrators in New York is that they dared to hold the US accountable to the same standards of evidence which the US will not apply to the Syrians.

Rather, the opposite is true: IF the US wants to use loose standards of evidence to accuse the Syrians, then by all means the RNC demonstrators would have more than enough basis to hold the US accountable.

But the US wants the opposite: No accountability for failing to meet the standards that the US wants to impose on the Syrians.

* * *

We see nothing before us that the UN investigation into Syria was a mandate.
One cannot hold someone “accountable for cooperating or not cooperating” when there is no requirement to do so.

One cannot make up rules midstream and say this is the new rule that applies.

Keep in mind the DNC wanted the Fitzgerald to release the report to all the public. However, there is no requirement. Are we to say that the “failure to respond to the DNC request, however devoid of legal foundation that request might be” is now evidence that Fitzgerald is then obstructing justice?

This is absurd. There is no rule or requirement that Fitzgerald do nor not do anything.

In turn, there is no requirement that the Syrians, as Iraq and Saddam, cooperate with something that was well above and beyond what they were required to cooperate.

Recall the WMD investigations in Iraq: They found nothing. Saddam’s opposition to them was that they continued to change the rules, demand more things, and essentially raise the intrusiveness to such a level as to harass the Iraqis.

We find there was no WMD, and no cover-up warranting the UN investigation. The Iraqis were cooperating, as required.

What the US wanted was something else: To make the terms of their cooperation so annoying that the Iraqis would most likely oppose them, triggering an invasion.

Small problem: Despite the outrageous, absurd investigations and changing rules, Iraq cooperated. But when it was clear that the UN investigations were not there solely to gather evidence, but act as a pre-text for invasion, then the Iraqis opposed that effort.

Iraq didn’t oppose the inspections. They opposed the absurd change of rules which were more liked with a pre-text for invasion than a bonafide effort to assess Iraqi WMD.

* * *

Syria had no requirement to specifically cooperate, just as Iraq had no requirement to cooperate with something that had another objective.

There was no mandate by the UN that the Syrians meet some criminal level of evidence; or that the Syrians provide a response that would be entered into evidence.

The issue of the UN investigation was to figure out what most likely happened; but this is not the same as conducting fact finding for the purposes of holding a trial.

The UN did not have a mandate that the rules of criminal evidence apply to the UN investigation; thus it is absurd that Bolton use the “non cooperation” as the basis to assert that this was an obstruction of justice.

* * *

For one to discuss an event, this is not the same as someone having participated in that event.

If the UN knew there were conversations, then the US has to explain why despite these conversations occurring, the US didn’t pick up the information on Echelon; and then use that information to warn the Lebanese.

One cannot assert that discussing an event is the same as having direct control over that outcome. If this were true, then by someone simply waiving their hand, and then the clouds gather, we are asked to believe that they can move the clouds.

Just because someone talks about something before an event occurred, doesn’t mean that the conversation was directly related to that result; nor does it mean that the initial conversations directly controlled the subsequent results and outcomes.

Talking about something is not the same as directly causing something to happen; nor is it the same as having direct control over, influence.

In turn, because one fails to demonstrate that they control an event, one cannot them sit back and take credit for those outcomes; or use those outcomes as evidence of their initial power, ability, and influence.

* * *

It is absurd to use the “knowledge of conversations” as evidence that there was a link between that conversation, the subsequent result; or evidence that the initial conversation caused the result or as in control of the events that achieved that result.

Because someone may have known about a conversation doesn’t mean that their knowledge of that conversation caused the event, or that they were involved.

IF this is true, then the fact that the US knew, or should have known, about the conversations through Echelon would mean that the US was in a position to stop the results; and the US because it failed to stop the events, was involved, or desired the outcome to occur.

* * *

The US is using a standard of evidence it doesn’t want applied to itself. The US is using guilt by accusation with Syria.

However, this approach failed when we consider Iraq and the WMD: and is not a rule or construct the US is willing to assent when it comes to 9-11.

Time and time again, despite the conflicting evidence and claims the US was or wasn’t involved in 9-11, the US dismisses the evidence and accusations.

Yet, if we are to accuse the Syrians based solely on an accusation, then we are engaging in circular logic. Chief Justice Roberts, when he appeared before the Senate Judiciary committee, time and time again referred to arguments as being circular.

Why is the US able to justify action against the Syrians on the basis of circular logic; but more compelling evidence of US involvement in 9-11 is dismissed?

Why is the US able to mobilize others against Syria using circular logic, yet the world community refused to do so with the Iraq WMD?

* * *

The US has to many double standards when it comes to 9-11, Syria, and Iraq.

Using the same rules of logic which have been violated in re Syria, we could also conclude the opposite about the US: that the US was involved, and that it was a party to the discussions prior to the events in Lebanon.

* * *

The US arguments, if applied to the US, would implicate the US involvement in the 9-11 attacks and the Lebanese Ambassador assassination.

If we are to believe using twisted logic that Syria was involved; we could similarly conclude that the Americans were involved.

If we are to believe that the lessons of 9-11 have been implemented, then there should be greater monitoring of the Middle East and important conversations. SO why isn’t the US able to show with Echelon who actually had a discussion?

Either the US has access with Echelon; or it does not.

Either the catalyst of I 9-11 triggered more oversight of the intelligence community and expanded Echelon into the Arab world; or it did not.

If the US claims it doesn’t know about the Echelon tapes in re Syria, then why should we believe the US has responded to problems Sibel Edmonds raised about the lack of translators for intercepts?

Either the US did know through Echelon what the Syrians were doing, and didn’t do anything to stop the attacks because the US thought the Syrians could be blamed; or the US despite 9-11 hasn’t increased its ability to intercept Arab-speaking conversations and we remain vulnerable.

However, if this “lack of intercept capability is true,” why would the Arabs go to the trouble of writing things out by hand and let the US troops intercept their plans?

The answer is that the US made up the plan; and there is no ability for conversations to occur without Echelon intercepting the conversations and plans.

* * *

One cannot argue “there were conversations” then suggest the US, despite Echelon, didn’t know about those conversations.

* * *

Moreover, to assert, because “someone knew about conversations, there are involved” would then make the US, through analogy, guilty of 9-11: The US knew of the conversations of 9-11, but did nothing.

Why is the loose evidence and burden of proof that is applied to Syria, not also applied to the United States when it comes to 9-11?

To suggest “someone must have known, therefore they are involved” is an argue that could easily be applied to the US in re Echelon and 9-11.

If there were conversations, then the US needs to explain why, despite Echelon, it did nothing to warn the Lebanese Prime Minister. Indeed, the “knowledge of something, but failing to act,” if it is to be applied to anyone, could apply to the US for failing to take action to stop the attack both in Lebanon and prior to 9-11.

* * *

To suggest that a “failure to cooperate” is an “obstruction of justice” is a great leap. There are specific requirements under a criminal investigation whether one, when they fail to disclose information, can be accused of fraud.

However, the UN investigation was just that, an investigation, not a criminal investigation. One cannot, by analogy, accuse someone of “because they did not cooperate this is the same as obstruction of justice” when the investigation was not a criminal one.

Rather, we see nothing before us that says, simply because someone is accused, that they must cooperate.

Indeed, it could be true that the Syrians did it; but it is equally true that the United States did it. Where is the US when it comes to responding; why isn’t the US defending itself; why isn’t the US fully disclosing the information about 9-11 and Able Danger?

To suggest “Oh, that’s a different issue,” would ask that we have two sets of standards: One standard that the US imposes on others; but when that same standard is applied to the US, we are to believe “That doesn’t apply.”

It is ironic that the very person stating “failure to cooperate amounts to an obstruction of justice” is the very person who refused to cooperate with the Senate over the Echelon tapes: Mr. Bolton.

The “failure to cooperate, therefore they are obstructing” could also apply to the US in how it conducted the white wash investigations into 9-11 and the intelligence issues.

Again, if we are to have one standard of “they didn’t cooperate, therefore they must be involved” that standard must also apply to the US in re 9-11 and the subsequent cover-up of the WMD and illegal war in Iraq.

* * *

In short, all the US statements about the Syrians are as worthless as the US claims about Iraqi WMD.

The US is using innuendo and accusations, not evidence.

If the US were to subject itself to the same logic as it applies to Syria, the US would be found guilty of being behind the 9-11 attacks, and for failing to stop the Lebanese assassination.

But there are far wider implications. If we are to believe that the US really has no intercept capability, then despite the catalyst of 9-11, the US isn’t able to monitor key conversations.

Yet, this is at odds with what the US claims in its ability to monitor the insurgents.

The US asks that the world believe the insurgents in Iraq have some mystical capability to move with varying degrees of organization. If the US wants to discredit the insurgents, it claims the US has intercepted their plans, while a more prudent approach, if the plans were real, would be to keep quiet about the plans.

Also, when the US talks about imminent problems within the insurgent ranks, it would have us believe that the command and control is weak, and the US or others are doing to split the alliance. Again, this is a fabrication: The insurgents are not centrally controlled. Rather, the issue is that the US hopes to pain the opposition in terms that the American population will understand: What happened on the battle fields of Europe during WWII, where there was a single entity, centrally controlled, and eventually defeated.

The US cannot claim the problems from Iraq have jumped into Syria; nor can it credibly argue that the non-existent insurgent-network in Iraq, has been moved to Syria.

Rather, the US is simply doing more of what it did prior to the war in Iraq: Creating more non-sense to justify sanctions against a scapegoat.

It is unlikely the US media will be able to demonstrate it has learned the lessons of 9-11 or Iraq WMD. Unlike 9-11 and the Iraq WMD where there was evidence fabricated, this time the UN has arrived at conclusions which are consistent with the US objectives.

However, it would be curious to see the US reaction should the same UN investigation look into 9-11 and the Iraq WMD issues.

The US cannot explain why supposedly Syrian-trained forces cannot be defeated.

What’s unclear is, why despite the lessons of 9-11 and WMD in re propaganda, the US is able to marshal the nations of the world.

Does Syria post a threat? Indeed, it is such a threat, the US is willing to use non-sense to destroy it just as it did in Iraq.

What’s changed is the US knows it cannot move alone. What hasn’t changed, is that the US will use any and all means, however absurd, to achieve its goal: Assign responsibility to a scapegoat, manipulate others.

What’s unclear is why, despite the public outcry over the WMD and 9-11 issues in that they were based on falsehoods and shams, isn’t the same community speak out about the same twisted logic as it applies to Syria.

Perhaps the White House has defeated the opposition and successfully beat the nations of the world to embrace that which cannot be credibly embraced.

It is well within the scope of possibility that the US was behind the assassination, and helped open the doorways to the convenient logic trains, however far removed they are from the logic tracks.

The US has a real responsibility, but the Congress has shown it is both powerless and unwilling to do: Take the lessons of this UN report about Syria and apply the same things to the US in re Able Danger and 9-11.

Nor can the US DoD explain why, if Syrian centrally controls the insurgent training, why DoD cannot effectively combat a single training strategy.

The US cannot explain why the 9-11, Downing Street Memo, and Able Danger programs should be investigated with one set of evidence standards; but the Syrians under a different set..

The US cannot credibly claim that the lessons of 9-11 have been injected into ensuring US Echelon forces are sufficiently staffed.

Those who point to Syria claiming that they didn’t cooperate, cannot explain why the White House failure to cooperate in re Bolton and Able Danger would warrant similar claims of obstruction of justice.

The US cannot explain why, despite the accusations against Syria based on innuendo is acceptable, while the greater evidence against the US in re 9-11 is dismissed.

The US cannot explain why the “failure to cooperate” standard is evidence of Syrian wrongdoing; but that same lack of cooperating is celebrated in the US as what is needed to protect evidence of war crimes, foreknowledge about 9-11, or the cover-up to avoid accountability in the White House in re ignoring intelligence about potential problems in Iraq.

We simply have more of the 9-11-WMD fiction. Despite being fooled before, the world is willing to embrace more non-sense.

The Americans have learned well: How to open doorways for the UN to ensure the conclusions are consistent with desired outcomes, not with either the rules of logic or evidence.

It is curious how quickly the US can mobilize to respond to a desirable report, but glacial to respond to findings that are at odds with the rule of law and White House accountability.

Indeed, it is curious how quickly these UN findings are used as a catalyst to demand reform; but similar findings of wrongdoing within the Administration in re torture, abuse, and war crimes is put on the bookshelf, getting little attention form the congress and a chorus of enabling excuses to justify the continued action.

We see nothing before us that says the Syrians have a superior responsibility to cooperate than the Americans.

Nor is there any evidence the Syrians, unlike the Americans, obstructed truth or documents.

America has built off the lessons of Iraq, 9-11, and WMD and created a far larger mountain of non-sense which the international community is all to willing to digest.

Recall what we heard after 9-11 and WMD in Iraq, “Where were they with their questions?

The answer is that the world isn’t listening, doesn’t want to know, and is unwilling to see the disconnects between how the Syrians and Americans are held to account.

Tyrants have one standard for themselves which they selectively ignore; and another standard, which they adjust to their own purposes, which they impose on others.

The common problem is that the rules are changing not simply based on the participants, but on what conclusions are most consistent with predefined outcomes and objectives.

This is not the rule of law, but the rule of tyrants.

It is clear the world and UN has been corrupted to smear and debate on the basis of information collected. This flawed analysis is not applied on their own conduct in other situations.

The US has successfully encouraged the world to embrace more non-sense. Rather than trying to convince the UN of what is going on using falsehoods, the US has encouraged the UN to embrace flawed conclusions.

The results are the same: Flawed policy, imprudent choices, and a subsequent line of analysis and planning which is devoid of reality.

One cannot credibly plan to oppose or fight the Syrians when the facts do not support the conclusions. It remains to be seen, as we saw in Iraq, how far removed the plans are from what is actually going on. There is a real risk, given the absurd foundation for these accusations, that the same flawed policies related to assessments about Syrian training, will be embraced by military planners to fight.

We’ve already seen that flawed policy is driving absurd combat operations in Iraq. It is equally likely that flawed politics will drive flawed military preparations.

The problem is that the Iraq insurgency is not fighting a centrally trained force, nor is that force linked to Syria; thus, it is likely that the policy-driven training requirements to fight this force that is not actually linked with Syria, will be organized in a way that seeks to centrally train the Iraqis to fight a specific enemy with illusory capabilities.

This is a recipe for training to fight the wrong enemy; or making flawed assumptions about the nature of the enemy and injecting those flawed assumptions into a strategy to defeat them. Flawed assumptions about the enemy will translate into flawed plans, strategy, and training to defeat them.

This is the danger of letting policy makers drive investigations; and letting facts and prudence dance beyond the horizon, far removed from the mindless masses, yearning to be manipulated.

* * *

America learned well from 9-11 and Iraq WMD: New methods are needed to justify imprudent use of power, especially when the world grows tired second-guessing tyrants.

If you cannot defeat your enenmy, exhaust them with non-sense.

The US, if it prevails, knows its continued manipulation relies on greater levels of absurdity.

This non-sense cannot withstand even cursory examination.

The mass of fools grows larger, more inclined to celebrate imprudence.

You now see the effects of tyranny at home and abroad: To get the people to willingly celebrate imprudence, and have them believe it is done for their own safety.

With just a nudge, the crowd screamed in delight as they tyrants chipped away at the last barriers to imprudence.

Who will dare stand up and call the non-sense for what it is?

Many are manipulated to embrace absurdity; and they stand ready to attack those who dare point to the spreading madness.

They are fools, but rely only on ignorance to assert their mindless tyranny on their fellow man.

This is a tyranny that is now democratically embraced, endorsed, and confused with a Republic.

That is the most dangerous, for the free citizenry, infused with self-righteousness, will assert 'the rule of law and accountability' to justify their own lawlessness.

We have seen this appear in Toledo, Ohio with the recent riots.

This is fair warning for what will spread worldwide, with the full cheering of the masses.

Enjoy the descent to chaos, the fruit of Republican Tyranny.