START A PETITION37,000,000 members: the world's largest community for good
Group Discussions
Obama's War on Syria Based on Lies
3 years ago

Obama’s War on Syria Based on Lies

by Stephen LendmanobamaSyria23

All wars are based on lies. Claims about Syrian forces using chemical weapons are false. They’re malicious.

They’re bald-faced lies. They’re repeated anyway. John Kerry wrongfully accused Syria of using chemical weapons.

It’s “undeniable,” he claimed. It’s “a moral obscenity.” He’ll provide evidence, he said. He has none. It’s invented. Don’t expect him to explain.

Vice president Biden lied, saying:

“There is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons, the Syrian regime.”

“Chemical weapons have been used. Everyone acknowledges their use.”

“No one doubts that innocent men, women and children have been the victims of chemical weapons attacks in Syria.”

“We know the Syrian regime is the only ones who have the weapons.”

“They’ve used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, they have the means to deliver those weapons, and they’re determined to wipe out the places attacked by the chemical weapons.”

Assad “must be held accountable.”

No evidence suggests Syrian forces used chemical weapons any time throughout months of conflict. Plenty points fingers the right way.

Insurgents used them multiple times. They’ve been caught red-handed. They’re responsible for last Wednesday’s Ghouta incident.

Don’t expect Obama officials to explain. Doing it compromises their regime change plans. They’re longstanding. They haven’t changed.

August 28 marks the 50th anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech. It’s getting widespread media coverage.

His April 4, 1967 “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence” address is ignored. It was delivered one year to the day before his state-sponsored assassination.

He called America “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.” It’s “on the wrong side of a world revolution,” he said.

“We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence, or violent co-annihilation.”

“We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.”

Silence is “betrayal.” He called war in Vietnam “an enemy of the poor.”

“(I)t should be incandescently clear that no one who has any concern for the integrity and life (in) America today can ignore the present war. If America’s soul becomes totally poisoned, part of the autopsy must read Vietnam.”

“This madness must cease….We must stop now….We must continue to raise our voices if our nation persists in its perverse ways in Vietnam.”

He called for a “revolution of values, (including) declaring eternal hostility to poverty, racism, and militarism.”

He ended quoting James Russell Lowell (1819 – 1891), saying:

“Once to every man and nation

Comes the moment to decide,

In the strife of truth and falsehood,

For the good or evil side….”

That time is now, said King. His dream’s still unfulfilled 46 years later. Things are worse now than ever.

It bears repeating what previous articles stressed. We’re living through the most perilous time in world history. America bears full responsibility.

This post was modified from its original form on 30 Aug, 5:44
3 years ago

Are all the left wing liberals going to rally around Obama, the war monger now?

What happened to Congressional vote and Congressional approval?


Instead, the imperialist will do as he pleases.

80% of Americans do not want Obama going into Syria!


Is Obama doing a "wag the dog" act to gain respect?

Someone tell him, it will backfire!

An Impeachable Offense
3 years ago

Make no mistake about it: President Obama’s 90-minute telephone conference call with a group of congressional “leaders” to consult about his plans to initiate a military attack on Syria does not comport with the U.S. Constitution, the higher law that the American people have imposed on federal officials.

The Constitution is clear: The power to declare war lies with Congress, not the president. Like it or not, under our form of government the president is prohibited from waging war without a declaration of war from Congress. If someone doesn’t like it, he’s free to start a movement to amend the Constitution to enable the president to both declare and wage war.

From a legal standpoint, it makes no difference that previous presidents have waged wars without the constitutionally required congressional declaration of war. Prior violations of the Constitution do not operate as an implicit amendment of the Constitution. If Obama proceeds to carry out his threat to initiate war against Syria, he will be committing a grave constitutional offense.

The Framers did not want President Obama or any other president to have the omnipotent, dictatorial authority to send the entire nation into war on his own initiative. They knew that rulers inevitably embroil themselves in things like “saving face,” “maintaining credibility,” and “showing toughness.”

Under our system of government, it’s up to Congress to determine whether the United States should go to war against Syria. To secure a congressional declaration of war, the president is required to present his case before Congress — the entire Congress, not a few congressional “leaders” in a telephone conference call. In that way, all the elected representatives of the American people can consider the president’s evidence regarding the Syrian government’s purported use of chemical weapons, weigh the evidence, and then determine whether there is sufficient justification for the United States to declare war on Syria.

It should be noted that even if the president were able to secure a congressional declaration of war, that wouldn’t mean that such a war would be moral. From a moral standpoint, the U.S. government has no more business attacking Syria, with or without a congressional declaration of war, than it does attacking and waging wars of aggression against any other nation.

It’s up to Congress to begin enforcing this constitutional provision. The Constitution is our law — the people’s law — the higher law that the American people imposed on federal officials when the federal government was called into existence with the Constitution. If Congress won’t enforce our higher law, who will?

It’s obvious that the federal judiciary won’t enforce this constitutional provision. The reason? The Supreme Court says it’s because the issue is a political one — a “non-justiciable” one — one that the Court supposedly lacks jurisdiction to resolve.

That’s just nonsense. The real reason the Court won’t get involved in this area is because it knows that the president and the national-security state won’t obey its judgment anyway. So, the Court figures, why enter a judgment that a war is unconstitutional when the Court knows that it’s not going to be complied with?

That’s why the Supreme Court has steadfastly avoided doing its duty by judging undeclared wars in violation of the Constitution. Doing so would expose in stark fashion the supreme and omnipotent position that the national-security state apparatus (i.e., the military, the CIA, and the NSA) assumed in America’s governmental system after World War II, which was the last time that Congress declared war.

So, what should Congress do? It should impeach Obama, convict him, and remove him from office if he proceeds to violate the Constitution — our Constitution — the people’s Constitution — by sending the nation into war against Syria without the congressional declaration of war that the Constitution requires. What better way to encourage future presidents to comply with the Constitution?



a poem from my youth
3 years ago

" what if they had a war and nobody came?"

you would think that there would be more conscientious observers ready to sit out all these ridiculous wars,  but NO, people are actually enlisting chanting that inane USA,USA

too bad they are brainwashed patriotic patsies, who are just pawns in the hands of the people thirsty for bloodshed for any reason.

not that we shouldn't be concerned about chemical warfare, but even the congress is begging for a debate, one of the first bi=partisan things I have seen in too long!

This post was modified from its original form on 30 Aug, 10:52
3 years ago

....everything obama does is based on lies.Why is he not being impeached?????Does he have that much power?Is he the anti-christ or something??????He has broken the constitution and over ridden the wishes of the people countless times.

3 years ago

People of the USA ought to be really pissed. "Our" government taxes us and then uses the taxes for immoral wars that have zero benefit to the people. Except for the military industrial complex and government connected that is. Perhaps we should drop them on Syria instead of bombs.


Worse. Look at who the US Qatar and Saudi Arabia have been using our money to fund? That's the FSA (Free Syrian Army). What is the major military force in the FSA? Al Nusra. What is al Nusra? A branch of al Qaeda. C-R-A-Z-Y..... or is it?


Why would "our" leaders do such a thing? Because the objective is not peace. It is to create chaos. Set people in the Middle East against themselves. Set up perpetual war. Invoke fear in the US and in people overseas,........... so the political class can pretend to save us. It's an evil sleight of hand tactic so we don't see how they are ripping us off and impoverishing us.  


These people are sociopaths.  

3 years ago

Sorry for the typo, my phone thinks it's smarter than me. ..conscientious objectors

Also, it is written that Israel was the reporter of record for the chemical weapons use...of course it's in their best interests to have us do the fighting! 

Did Obama Stand Down Again?
3 years ago
1 min ago

Did Obama Stand Down…..AGAIN?



Syria, Benghazi and Egypt, Oh My! What’s a President to do?


From Fox News we get this story:

Obama leaving door open to Syria strike, even if Congress votes no

President Obama apparently is leaving the door open to moving ahead with a military strike on Syria even if Congress votes against it, adding to the confusion over the president’s evolving position.

The president, in a surprise decision Saturday, announced he would seek a vote in Congress on launching a military attack against the Assad regime.

One senior State Department official, though, told Fox News that the president’s goal to take military action will indeed be carried out, regardless of whether Congress votes to approve the use of force.

Other senior administration officials said Obama is merely leaving the door open to that possibility. They say he would prefer that Congress approve a military attack on the Assad regime, in response to its alleged use of chemical weapons, and will wait to see what Congress does before making any final decisions on authorizing military force.

Yet the possibility that Obama would move ahead without the support of Congress is sure to stir confusion among lawmakers, who had – for the most part – applauded his decision to seek their input first, though others claimed he was “abdicating his responsibility” by punting to Congress. It would raise questions about why he decided to seek congressional input at all, after having moved military assets into position immediately, and then waited days and possibly weeks for a debate in Washington.

obama holder hillary in charge of everything and yet responsible for nothing



3 years ago

Yesterday, millions of people protested Against Obama attacking Syria; maybe that is why he did stand down along with many stating impeachment!


He is not an Imperial Ruler of the USA, there is a Congress and the PEOPLE he is accountable to and the correct way to do this is with discussion and PROOF.


There are so many conflicting accounts as to who is doing the chemical gases and there is NO valid proof of one, I will state that Assad is an Imperialist dictator and may be allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to do the dirty work.  If Assad fall, these same people- The Muslim Brotherhood gain control and here we go again, Egypt all over again!


Christians being murdered by Jihadists and forced to accept Sharia Law, NO, this is NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO GO AT ALL!

3 years ago

i think this would be one fo the hugest mistakes a country could make.  in this case, id do hope that congress votes against this.

3 years ago

Nancy:   the so-called evidence is conflicting.   Many claim this is a false flag and Assad is not doing this to his own people, the rebels e.g. Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quada forces are doing it to get the West to take out Assad.  


Jihad wants world war, they want a Caliphate.

Everyone should watch PBS  3 hr. mini series on Mohammed.  I am sure you can watch it online.

It is the historical narrative of what how the MB evolved and Jihad came to being.


I heard Kerry, our SOD speak today and he is the same old Kerry that said the same old thing years ago, that American servicemen were burning, killing, raping Vietnamese which all proved to be a lie and it was a small faction of sociopaths which exist in every single Army in the world.

That is a fact!  they get addicted to killing and violence and again, it is in every army worldwide.


Kerry is an arsehole, he still points fingers and gets people embroiled in untruths.

Obama has the worst administration I have ever seen, talk about Bush, he is not far behind!    

This thread is archived. To reply to it you must re-activate it.

New to Care2? Start Here.