Should The War On ISIS Have Ever Been Declared? Is It A Diversionary Tactic?

URL and to post comments: http://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2014/10/8/the-khorasan-group-terrorist-flavor-of-the-month.html Wednesday,October 08, 2014 [The following post is by TDV Contributor, Wendy McElroy] All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. --George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia Obama has scammed the world into war...again. He is unlikely to repeat the facilitating lie this time, however. It was too thoroughly and quickly debunked for him to take the risk. Besides, there is no need. Iraq and Syria are already being bombed. Instead, the lie is now forgotten except by critics of Obama or of war. The Lie And Why The Liars Told It In early September, as he prepared to bomb Iraq and Syria without approval from Congress or the United Nations, Obama faced a dilemma. America had been actively at war for 13 years, ever since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan. The public was war-weary. And the public would be voting Republican or Democrat in only two months time. How could he bomb with public support and without losing the election? The situation was especially problematic for three reasons. There was general consensus that the new military front on terrorism would consume years and might require U.S. boots on the ground. Iraq and Syria posed no provable or imminent threat to the American homeland nor did they commit an act of war. And Obama had no constitutional, congressional, U.N. or other authority to launch yet another war. In an article (Sept. 28) entitled “The Fake Terror Threat Used To Justify Bombing Syria,” journalists Glenn Greenwald and Murtaza Hussain explained how Obama solved his dilemma. The solution “was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat...'The Khorasan Group'. After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.” (Note: Khorasan is a former province of Iran. The term is sometimes used to reference a more general Afghanistan-Pakistan-Iran region.) The meticulous stripping of the lie came only 15 days after its debut. The debut: On September 13, about a week before the bombing of Syria began, the Associated Press drew upon unnamed officials and classified (undisclosed) U.S. Intelligence assessments to warn of a new and deadlier terrorist threat. “At the center is...the Khorasan group, a cadre of veteran al-Qaida fighters.” The Khorasan group were “recruit[ing] Europeans and Americans whose passports allow them to board a U.S.-bound airliner” with explosives and destroy airplanes. The AP continued, “The Obama administration has said that the Islamic State group [ISIS], the target of more than 150 U.S. airstrikes in recent weeks, does not pose an imminent threat to the continental U.S. The Khorasan group, which has not been subject to American military action, is considered the more immediate threat.” In an anti-war.com article (Sept. 28) entitled “They're Making Up Stuff,” Justin Raimondo explained the new group's importance to Obama. “What’s so fearsome about 'Khorasan'?” Raimondo asked, “Well, they couldn’t care less about establishing a Caliphate...and as for overthrowing Assad, the Khorasanians won’t stoop to conquer. No, nothing less than an attack on America, preferably using an airliner as a weapon of choice, will do. What they lack in originality they more than make up for when it comes to the all-important Imminence Factor.”  Problems one and two were diminished, if not entirely solved. Conveniently, the Khorasan group threatened the American homeland with violence, which is a traditional cause of war. The terrorists-on-steroids roused enough public rage and fear to justify an extended campaign against them...or, at least, to quiet or confuse most objections to it. Still One Stumbling Block But what of problem three: the lack of Congressional and U.N. approval? The Congressional problem remains. Congress is not rushing back to vote on war; it will stay on hiatus until after the November 4th election. For one thing, the Republicans who dominate the House are mostly hawkish and probably content enough with the status quo. They are also content to have Democrats absorb blow back or military disasters. Obama chose to bypass Congress so let the fall-out land on his shoulders. No wonder Nancy Pelosi, the leading House Democrat, is calling for her colleagues to return early for a war vote.  Their absence harms Democrats. The U.N. problem remains. On October 3, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon called for “all warring sides in this brutal and bloody conflict [in Syria]....“to redouble their efforts to bring this horrific conflict to an end and help reach a long-overdue political solution.” In short, stop bombing. Obama has tried to sidestep such criticism by organizing a coalition to support his Syrian policy; this gave the appearance of global consensus. The Daily Mail reported “the U.S. is working with 60 other nations in these attacks against the terrorist group” as of September 28.  Domestic Acceptance Is Constructed The path around political problems is to secure popular opinion. The corporate mainstream media lost no time in stirring the panic that promotes war. Airwaves, internet and print were filled with reports of the Khorasan's threat to average Americans. On September 20, a New York Times headline declared, “U.S. Suspects More Direct Threats Beyond ISIS.” While admitting “[t]here is almost no public information about the Khorasan group,” the article went on to state, “it is the cell in Syria that may be the most intent on hitting the United States or its installations overseas with a terror attack.”  On September 23, the Defense of Department (DOD) announced that the U.S. had expanded its “action [in Syria] to disrupt the imminent attack...against the United States and Western interests conducted...by the Khorasan Group - who have established a safe haven in Syria to develop external attacks, construct and test improvised explosive devices and recruit Westerners.”  Even then, however, voices of skepticism spoke in the background. On the same day as the DOD's announcement, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace raised a red flag. Noting that “[t]he 'Khorasan Group' is a term that gained currency only in the past two week,” Carnegie remarked “[w]hat is being discussed is not a 'new terrorist group', but rather a special cell...of an already existing al-Qaeda franchise.” The article concluded, “[t]he sudden flurry of revelations about the 'Khorasan Group' in the past two weeks smacks of strategic leaks and political spin.” As skepticism grew, the corporate mainstream media began to backpedal. Five days after pushing the Khorasan story, The New York Times (Sept. 25) questioned the group's existence. It also observed that official accounts of the threat Khorasan posed “differed” and an attack on the American homeland was now being described as “aspirational” rather than “imminent.” The pivotal point came on September 28 when Greenwald and Hussain blew the lid off the lie. They did so with such force that even liberal, pro-Democrat outlets such as Democracy Now! began running headlines such as, “How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along.” Conclusion In record time, a lie was born and died. But does the truth matter? The bombing goes on. Perhaps the saga will convince some Americans to vote differently in November. Even if they do, will Republicans be any better on the war issue? Whatever happens in America, the Iraqis and Syrians murdered by bombing raids that were launched will never draw breath again. Comments? Join us at TDV! Wendy McElroy is a regular contributor to the Dollar Vigilante, and a renowned individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982, and is the author/editor of twelve books,

Syria Escapade Could Involve Boots On The Ground

If one wanted to know what the Administration is thinking, all one has to do is to really listen to the words of our Secretary of State. From the following post: "Secretary of State John Kerry refused to rule out boots on the ground in Syria, ..." 

Yup, they are planning a full scale invasion of the country to "secure the chemical weapons."  Sure! Of course, they won't become involved in the civil war--right! Do they really think we are that dumb?

This delay to get Congressional approval (they are working overtime to make sure they get it) is all meant to give them time to create the invasion plans. From where we sit, it is going to happen and there seems  little we citizens can do about it.

Our government is planning to overthrow the Assad government and install another Muslim Brotherhood/Hezbollah/Al Qaida government in its place. And we the American people get to finance it and our troops get to lose their lives in the effort to install an anti-American government. Is the world going crazy? Or are our leaders?

If this wasn't so outlandish, one would say it was impossible. Unfortunately, it appears as if the Obama Administration and its hawk dupes (both Republican and Democrat) are paving the way for another disaster in the Middle East.

Conservative Tom

Rice: White House has 'no expectation' of losing Syria vote

By Justin Sink - 09/03/13 07:06 PM ET

  

National Security Adviser Susan Rice said Tuesday said the Obama administration was "quite confident" it would prevail in a congressional vote authorizing a military strike in Syria.

"We have no expectation of losing the vote in Congress," Rice told NBC News. "We're quite confident."

Rice defended the administration from critics who have charged that seeking congressional approval could give the Assad regime time to prepare. But Rice said that the administration had not "announced our intentions to the enemy."

"The United States has been making clear for years that it is unacceptable to use chemical weapons," Rice said. "When President Obama made the statement last summer, he was speaking on behalf of the American people and the Congress."

She also downplayed the likelihood that the Syrian conflict could spiral out of control, requiring further American intervention or putting lives at risk.

"It's always a risk that military action can evolve in a complicated way. But we think that's a very limited risk in this case," Rice said.

Her comments came shortly after Secretary of State John Kerry refused to rule out boots on the ground in Syria, saying the president could need to order troops into the country to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of terror groups.

“I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president that might secure our country,” he said.

But, Kerry insisted, "there will not be American troops on the ground with respect to the civil war."

Rice's television appearance — her first since becoming national security adviser — comes as the Obama administration looks to rally support for the president's request for authorization to use military force.

In what administration officials have called a "flood the zone" strategy, the president and top Cabinet members have lobbied members of Congress to support the proposal. Kerry will head back to Capitol Hill on Wednesday to testify publicly before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, while also participating in a classified gathering of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Rice's appearance also comes despite lingering controversy over her appearance last year in the immediate aftermath of the Benghazi terror attack. At that time, Rice said that she believed that the violence began spontaneously from a protest. Republicans later charged that she had been deliberately deceitful.

Even With Congressional Approval--Is Obama Misleading?

We are not so sure that even with Congressional approval, the President still could be misleading us and our legislators.  We should be very skeptical and demand independent verification of the facts.

As we posted last night, there are stories that the gas was supplied by the Saudis and was given to the rebels who mishandled the weapons.  Why have we not heard anything like that on the lame stream media?

It is because it does not meet the President's story that Assad did it. We cannot continue to believe the media as they do not investigate, all they do is regurgitate the White House.

This Administration has NOT earned our trust. If anything they should be dis-trusted.

Conservative Tom

Obama Wants Military Strike Against Syria, But Will Seek Congressional Approval President Obama said Saturday that he had decided that the United States should take military action against Syria in response to a deadly chemical weapons attack, but that he would seek Congressional authorization for the use of force. Mr. Obama said the Congressional leadership planned to hold a debate and a vote as soon as both houses come back in September. He said he had the authority to act on his own, but believed it is important for the country to have a debate. READ MORE » http://www.nytimes.com?emc=edit_na_20130831