War Crimes Media Strategy: President References Illusory Issues [ Syria, Iran ]
Cheney's Daughter Behind Propaganda About Iran-Syria
To create a war crimes defense smokescreen, the President has tasked legal counsel to develop a media strategy. The approach includes raising phony issues, pretending there are problems, and focusing the debate on questionable material. The information released is designed to be ambiguous, misleading, and inconsistent. This keeps the attention off the President's war crimes.
Ref Lesson of Iraq for US Position on Iran: US government decided talkig poitns outside CIA and DoD: Intelligence assessments were forced to be consisetnt with pre-deteriend policy memos, not with real intellitence.
Ref: US not serous about peace -- blocking Isreali overtures to Syrians. US claims incorrectly that there are problems between countries, but gets in the way toward solutions. Uh. . .k. "We need chaos to justify military action, not peace." [Stupid Americans]
Ref Iran offers olive branch to US.
Ref: Leading questions to get worthless "public opinion"
Ref US too busy waging illegal warfare to keep accurate data on DoJ proseuctions [Department of recklessness]
Ref Avoid peace, and sucker Iraq into a war: Fair notice of the ruses planned for Iran
Ref StratCom prepared for pre-emptive attack on Iran
The Story appears to have been fed by the Vice President's daughter through the Lincoln Group as a wire story through the Syrian-Iranian OSP office, and repackaged without adequate disclosures by ABC.
The President is spending more resources to create diversions in Iran and Syria. The aim of the article and information appears to be to have it quoted or discussed, then raise the questions of the Syrian-Iranian discussions. This is a phony issue.
The information in the piece does not appear well researched, and appears to have overplayed some things: Ref The US involvement in the Hairi assassination is not being addressed.
Syria and Iran have many levels of interchange are discussing larger issues with Iraq border security. The US is overstating the importance of a minor differences in approach.
The error for the article is to focus on what Saudi Arabia or Lebanon are dong, and pretending that different approaches to Iran and Syria implies a rift between Iran and Syria. This is absurd.
Claims that Assad is "concerned" about something is an overstatement and fabrication. The US fails to understand that the concern is really with the White House: "Will the world realize I am the problem?"
The Syrian and Iranian presents had enough to talk about that the leaders spent two days. Talking about American meddling isn't evidence that the nations are looking for excuses, but talking about the US efforts to meddle.
Note the words: "Admission" and "may be fraying" are not valid conclusion.
That two leaders are not exactly the same in no way implies that there is a conflict, only that they are different people.
It is an overstatement to suggest that the Syrian-Iranian relationship is "cooling" or that it is "serious."
Suggesting that the rift "will" develop into a "rift" and "sever hostility" is absurd.
Iran has no burden to do anything. The problem is the US President.
Two Days of Productive Meetings
It's an overstatement suggest after two days of meeting that there is a problem; or that the Hezbollah is unable to repeat what it did against Israel.
Calling the two leaders discussions a "rift" or "crisis" is absurd.
Saying that Lebanon is a "flash point" for a rift is meaningless. It appears the US has a problem with Saudi Arabia n that the Saudis are discussing nuclear power issues with the Russians, not the Americans.
There's nothing to suggest that a desire to have a review is a "Crisis". There's nothing in the article to suggest that there is a problem.
The evidence in re Lebanon PM has been overstated.
That Syria "might be implicated" is not something that the Syrian leader is worried about. He's confidence that there is no problem. This is an illusory concern fabricated by the Vice President' daughter.
The article mischaracterizes the Syrian leaders interest. Contrary to claims that he "blocked" anything, he's done the opposite: Openly attempted to work to find a solution. The "blocking" has been overplayed as a problem, while it ignores the progress in the other areas.
Illusory Problem To Distract Attention
If the Saudis have organized something, there is no "rift" between Syria and Iran; rather, the Saudis, by meeting with one side, would have us believe that there is a rift between the Saudis and someone else. This is irrelevant.
It is absurd to say that Syria is "intent" on blocking something that the Syrian President is supporting; and has nothing to do with Iran.
It is absurd to suggest that the Syrians "do not care" about Lebanese stability. This is nonsense. Syria has no interest in seeing Lebanon spiral into chaos -- it would mean more refugees on top of the Iraqi refugees.
Saudi Actions Cannot Drive A Wedge Between Iran and Syria
The Saudi decision to talk to one side or the other says nothing about the relationship between Syria and Iran; but about the spin Saudi Arabia would have us embrace because of a problem between Saudi Arabia and Syria/Iran.
The article is inconsistent: Saudi has been saying that it has difference with Iran; this article would have us believe there are consistencies.
___ Why would Iran have an "interest" in stability; but Syria does not? That claim about Syria is not credible. Just as Iran and Saudis want stability, so do the Syrians.
Notice the shift on Saudi Arabia. Before the Saudi "concern" was with Iranian influence; now we're asked to believe they are supporting Iran. The original claims are not consistent with the latter claims.
There is no trade off; the Iranians have not backpedaled; and the Iranians have not agreed to something that they will be "forced" to reject.
The article talks about what may or may not be important to Saudi Arabia, but does nothing to explain why this "priority" is or is not relevant to the relationship with Iran.
Saying that the Saudi goal -- outside Syria and Iran -- is an "obvious" deal breaker for anyone is meaningless.
Iran Still Powerful
It is not correct to say that Iran's "primary interest" of influence is true; or that it is with bad motives.
It is not news that Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are associated. But to say that this is a "means to entry" implies that this is prospective; this if false. It’s been going on for some time, this is not news.
Characterizations Not Credible
Notice the language of the piece, but there is little to suggest that these characterizations are anything but editorial comments. These's nothing here to back up these claims.
"Major political initiative" -- yawn. Iran and Syria just spent two days together; the Saudis did not.
"Discrepancies" is more negativity.
"Deeper differences" is more meaningless non-sense.
"salvaging the alliance" is an illusion. There was no problem to salvage.
"succeed in derailing" is an overstatement; Syria is supportive of solutions; the Saudis are overstating their place.
"Bypassed" implies something relevant; but says nothing about Iran-Syria;
"Dominant power" is an illusion.
"Controls financing" is meaningless. Hezbollah is not "controlled" but assisted.