Syria: State Department accusations implicate White House
Americans are playing the same game as they did with Iraq.
What America says about Syria says more about the White House deceptions and lawlessness -- the core issues driving Fitzgerald's investigation.
It remains to be seen whether Congress wakes up to the ruse, or uses the Syrian-mirror as the basis to impeach the President.
America is dancing with Syria as it played with Iraq before the unlawful invasion.
The Syrian leadership has stated,
"No matter what we do and how much we cooperate, the result after a month will be that 'Syria did not cooperate'
"We support international legitimacy but not at the expense of our national interests"
Americans, as evidenced by their bungling communication on the internet, and specifically blogs, have demonstrated a consistent pattern of a communication problem.
Full speech.
This appears to be a Joint Staff disinformation/propaganda tool: Beat the war drums, create the illusion of options, when they've actually made a decision otherwise.
The actual facts appear the opposite:
Rep. Paul offers a warning about Syria. Conyers sees some parallels between what the US did in Vietnam's neighbor Cambodia: Making up stories to braoden the war, all the while telling Congress the opposite.
Some believe that the White House and Joint Staff are doing far more, with the specific goal of provoking Syria into a war. But what happens if Syria fails to take the bait, as did Iraq; will the Americans make up more lies and non-sense to implement the already-decided-war?
As a sign of possible pre-invasion probes, US forces are working along Syrian Border, and 3 US soldiers were killed on 15 Nov 2005 during Operation Steel Curtain. Hitler had phony Polish soldiers attack Germans to justify the invasion in 1939.
The issues are whether the truth is known:
On all counts, America has no answers, just accusations.
Just as they did with Iraq.
America is changing the issue from [a] whether the facts do or do not support a predetermined outcome; to [b] whether the target of their accusations is or isn't cooperating.
We saw the same thing in Iraq: Where there was no evidence to support the conclusion, the argument changed to whether the Iraqi regime was or wasn't cooperating.
Next on the State Department checklist is to then assert that the target country "must comply" without reservations.
Would it not be wonderful if Ms. Rice and her friends in the White House did the same when it came to the 9-11 investigation: No delays, no off-the-record remarks, and no "I have to be with my pals, but not be under oath."
If America, and specifically the RNC "leadership" in the State Department and White House, are going to hold Syria to a "standard of cooperation," surely it would mean something if the RNC were to meet that same standard: Cooperate, not stonewall.
Yet, when the President of the United States asserts "executive privilege," the Congress is expected to grovel at that standard; but the moment that a foreign head of state asserts that their nation's "integrity" will be maintained, then the White House and State Department throw up their hands.
The RNC leadership doesn't believe that it can get away with one standard imposed on other nations, but that something less is good enough for their own country.
The Americans and the Syrians are not on the same page about "what it means to cooperate." In the Syrians' view, the following is a sign of cooperation:
Assad said Mehlis had refused an offer to sign a cooperation accord in Damascus and had rejected suggestions that the U.N. probe cooperate with Syria's own commission of inquiry into the murder.
'I telephoned (Egyptian President) Hosny Mubarak yesterday to look into the possibility the inquiry could take place at the Arab League (in Cairo) but Mehlis refused,' Assad said.
Clearly, despite "their view of Cooperation" [put aside whether you agree or disagree with it], the US has asserted that Syria isn't cooperating.
Rice has changed the issue from whether Syria is or isn't discussing how the information will be transferred, and is focusing on the immediacy of the cooperation.
The contrast is striking. On the other hand, prior to the White House releasing information, it takes time, sometimes years, to inter alia:
Yet, despite the American's approach to how they review the qualifications of a Judge like Supreme Court Justice Roberts, the Americans immediately want the Syrians to turn "everything over."
Wonderful, perhaps the Americans need to better define what they mean by "Turn it all over," and show "Why the subsequent round of reviews is going to ask different questions than what Mehlis has already asked.
Again, the issue and burden of this debate rests on the Americans: What is gong to satisfy you; and are the Americans gong to agree with what response they get from Syria "will or will not be sufficient"?
Again, as we saw in Iraq, and as the Syrian President has already said, the Americans are clearly playing the same game: No matter what response they get, the American "leadership" is going to whine that the information isn't good enough, not fast enough, and not in the right form.
This is an American problem. It is a leadership problem. And it springs from the White House, not Damascus.
The issue before us is whether the Americans can credibly argue that they are really interested in knowing the truth.
The more that we see that America is acting as it did before it unlawfully invaded Iraq, the more the Americans "leadership" should realize that the American citizenry has reasonable doubts about the American "leadership" motives.
Facts cannot be changed.
So why is there the "big rush" to gather something that cannot be changed?
Indeed, if we look at the glacial response the America Administration gave to Congress in re 9-11, Iraq WMD, and the Lt Col Schaeffer concerns over Able Danger, we see a consistent pattern of, "We are not going to timely cooperate; we in the White House are going to move at our own schedule."
Before the former Soviet Union and Americans would permit visits to each others' nuclear stockpiles, there were certain agreements which had to be ironed out.
There were matters of schedules, personnel lists, which areas personnel were going to go, what type of protocols.
Then, came the issue of ensuring those requirements were translated into real plans, and that the identified locations were readied for the visits.
These take time. And the White House and State Department staffers know all too well that a Presidential visit doesn't happen overnight: It takes time, planning, conferences, pre-site visits, and communications.
Why are the Americans so keen to quickly demand that Syria quickly move?
Nobody in the State Department would be reasonably be expected if they demanded that an American family "quickly jump through hoops" to clean up their house for a Presidential visit.
Just because a family takes some time to straighten up their yard, cut the grass, and goes shopping to buy some special clothes for the visit, doesn't mean that the family is up to "no good."
Rather, the Syrians simply want to cooperate in a fully manner, and ensure that the arrangements are understood, agreed to, and that the Syrians fully comply with those specific agreements.
Any time a construction company is asked to do modifications or maintenance on an Embassy, that contract is the fruit of some intense discussion.
Indeed, program managers working for the state department know that there are differences over what the contractor and government means by specific terms. This is why the SES has a system of program managers and contractors that are on hand to negotiate with the contractors' lawyers.
The goal of any business in America that is working for the State Department is to respond.
So too, just as the Americans will only hire those on the approved contract list, are the Syrians hoping to take the first step to solve the issues.
Syria is a sovereign nation, just as Iraq used to be.
So too is America.
But who would dare to agree to work with Americans when they demand others comply with vague terms; and then move the line on what is acceptable?
Let us hope the State Department continues their games. But this is more of the Bush non-sense: Distract attention from the real issue -- Are the leaders in America reliable?
Self-evidently, as we see from the Libby indictments, Americans are not reliable.
The solution to the "American unreliability problem" is for other nations to ensure the Americans are very clear with what they want, and get that in writing.
Americans love contracts. But it is amazing how quickly they'll cry when others expect the same.
Why are the Americans afraid of Syria doing what America does: Ensuring the planned responses are going to address the concerns?
Why is America worried that Syria, by doing what the White House does, is somehow "up to something"?
Everything the State Department says about Syria can be applied to the White House. What the White House is doing, is what the State Department fears the Syrians may do:
The list is endless.
The State Departments public comments about Syria say more about what the Fitzgerald Grand Jury should be probing into:
We have no answers. But despite "all that the White House can't explain about what is going on in it's own small corner of DC," the White House and State Department want us to believe that they know what Syria is doing.
How can this be? How can the State Department be clear of anything, while the CIA is clear on what is contrary to the White House interests?
America's position on Syria is not supportable. The State Department and White House are making waves.
But the real "leaders" in DC should ride that wave to Fitzgerald's office, turn over the answers to the Grand Jury's questions, and let the Syrian-Lebanon investigation "take its' course," just as we have seen with the Fitzgerald investigation.
It is not appropriate for the Americans to change the terms on Syria. Nor is it appropriate for the same American "leaders" to do what they've done in Iraq: Change the rules, change the subject, ignore what is going on, and continue to change the argument in order to justify the desired conclusion.
If America truly wants to solve this "problem with investigations," it would have far more credibility if it showed, with actions, and assistance to Fitzgerald that you are serious about fact finding.
Self-evidently, America is not concerned bout the rule of law or facts when it comes to Syria. America, as we saw in Iraq, is more concerned about imposing American power and interests, regardless reality.
That is imprudent.
And American citizens should take note: You were lied to in 2002, and here we are in 2005 finding out the facts.
Three years from now, what questions are you going to wish the media had asked about Syria that "nobody thought to ask"? If you want to read more about "those questions" go here.
It's time for American citizens to ask, "How many torture chambers in Eastern Europe are being set up to detain Syrians which the Americans may or may not detain?"
Carefully read the press releases, look for the comparison with what occurred prior to the invasion of Iraq.
Know that the same players are using the same planning teams around the globe to spin the news, change the subject, and smear Syria.
Let's hope the American citizens begin to apply the same scrutiny to their own government statements on Syria as they might give to the White House comments on Iraq. It's the same crew, playing the same non-sense: Their stories don't add up, and it is outcome-driven policy, not leadership.
For that, America should realize that the Congressional "investigations" have failed to tip the balance where they should be: Based on prudence, not non-sense.
America's leadership and checks and balances have failed. Your leadership continues the same illusions as we saw in Iraq and does so with Syria.
Your leadership has not taken the time to consider what is it is saying, and its arguments are not reasonable.
The rule of law ensures that states are sovereign. In that construct is the notion that States are also to move in compliance with the laws, contracts, and agreements.
It is not the role of the State Department to command that the world grovel at the feet of those who talk about the rule of law, but then whine when nations dare to reciprocate with lawful agreements.
Self-evidently, given America's disregard for human rights at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, America isn't serious about international law. Where the world might believe there is some American leadership, it is quickly snuffed out by those who want the world to comply with what America wants, not what with the law or agreements stipulate.
If America is serious about the rule of law, then America should ask its own leadership why, despite Echelon, American points to Syria as "must be involved," but we have nothing from Echelon to point to.
America likes to point to Syria as "must be involved, because it had control" has the same merit as suggesting the US, because it controlled NYC, must have been involved in 9-11.
America's arguments are flawed. American leadership knows, because American citizens are easily fooled, that the arguments will carry great weight.
But the mass of public support stands little chance to defend this White House from Fitzgerald.
If America wants the mob to rule, then America has descended into barbarity. Civilized nations should reasonably expect their leaders to engage in lawful discussions and ensure their actions, if taken, are not only required, but are going to solve problems.
America has once again shifted the debate from whether the White House and Libby were or were not responsive to the rule of law; and changes the debate onto whether a convenient scapegoat is or isn't following a new set of ambiguous rules.
This is not leadership. Nor is it something Americans should be inspired by.
Yet, it is more of the same which launched America into an illegal war.
We will find out the facts. Most likely, we will learn the hard way, and it is a shame that Libby will pay a heavy price for the deceptions during his trial.
posted by Constant @ 1:47 PM
<< Home