The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity
Subscribe to the Institute View Us on YouTube Follow Us On Twitter Join Us on Facebook Join Us at Google Plus

Latest Posts

On Malaysian Crash, Obama's Case Against Russia Disintegrates
Tuesday the US government admitted it had been bluffing about its certainty that Russia was behind the downing of Malaysian Air Flight MH-17 over Ukraine. 



23 July 2014read on...

Kerry’s Latest Reckless Rush to Judgment
Secretary of State John Kerry boasts that as a former prosecutor he knows he has a strong case against the eastern Ukrainian rebels and their backers in Russia in pinning last Thursday’s shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on them, even without the benefit of a formal investigation.

21 July 2014read on...

The Stealing of America by the Cops, the Courts, the Corporations and Congress
Call it what you will—taxes, penalties, fees, fines, regulations, tariffs, tickets, permits, surcharges, tolls, asset forfeitures, foreclosures, etc.—but the only word that truly describes the constant bilking of the American taxpayer by the government and its corporate partners is theft.

21 July 2014read on...

What the Media Won’t Report About Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17
Just days after the tragic crash of a Malaysian Airlines flight over eastern Ukraine, Western politicians and media joined together to gain the maximum propaganda value from the disaster. It had to be Russia; it had to be Putin, they said. President Obama held a press conference to claim – even before an investigation – that it was pro-Russian rebels in the region who were responsible. His ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, did the same at the UN Security Council – just one day after the crash!

20 July 2014read on...

What Happened to the Malaysian Airliner? Washington’s propaganda machine is in such high gear that we are in danger of losing
the facts that we do have. One fact is that the separatists do not have the expensive Buk anti-aircraft missile system or the trained personnel to operate it.

20 July 2014read on...

What Gaza’s Crisis Shows About Israel’s Ambitions and America’s Decline
As Israel’s military kills and injures hundreds of civilians in Gaza—whose population Israel is legally obligated to protect as an occupying power—people around the world, including in the United States, wonder why official Washington appears so indifferent to even the most graphic instances of “collateral damage.”

19 July 2014read on...

David Versus Goliath in Gaza
Israel is clearly winning the David v. Goliath struggle with Palestinians in Gaza.

Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, seized on the murder in June of three Jewish teenagers from a West Bank settlement to launch Israel’s third war against Gaza in six years.




19 July 2014read on...

Blood, Treasure and Soul: The Exorbitant Price of the American Empire
It is difficult to pinpoint exactly when it happened, but clear evidence can be seen at least in the aftermath of World War II. Some trace the origins back to 1898 and the Spanish-American War, or even earlier to the War of 1812. And still others would say that imperial ambitions were even on the minds of some of the Founding Fathers. Regardless, there can be no doubt that today the United States of America is an empire.

18 July 2014read on...

US Foreign Food Aid Hurts the Poor The U.S. government loves to preen about its generosity to the world’s downtrodden. However, a long series of presidents and their tools have scorned the evidence that their aid programs perennially clobber recipients. Nowhere is this clearer than in the sordid history of U.S. food aid.

17 July 2014read on...

Featured Articles

Obama's Flimsy Case For Attacking Syria Falls Apart


Obamacameron

It started with Secretary of State John Kerry. On Monday, he made the Obama Administration's preliminary case for a US attack on Syria. He promised an administration response, after watching the YouTube videos of people suffering from some sort of attack in Syria had convinced him that the Syrian government had carried out an attack on innocent civilians. Anyone who questions this, he said, "needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass." That's it. With an intelligence budget of at least $100 billion plus, the Secretary of State is getting his information on what is happening in Syria through videos made by the US-allied opposition and uploaded to YouTube for propaganda value.

At best these videos only show the half-truth that their makers are seeking to convey. It is a very shaky foundation upon which to base a US war on a foreign country. His moral outrage that anyone might be skeptical about these videos is undermined by the incontrovertible fact that the Syrian opposition has a long history of falsifying evidence -- including fake videos -- of the Syrian government's war crimes.

All sides use propaganda in a war situation and have done so since the beginning of man's war on man.

Kerry further explained in his Monday statement, that "our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense." 

The facts, it turned out, seem thus far to be very sketchy intelligence "helpfully" provided to the US administration by a highly interested party, Israeli intelligence. The Israelis claim to have listened in to a phone call where Syrian governmental officials discussed the chemical attack after the fact. A phone call, knowing Israeli intelligence capabilities. 

And Kerry's "common sense"? Here is his logic: We know that the Syrian government has chemical weapons, we know they have the capacity to deliver the weapons, we know they wanted to clear the insurgents from the area, therefore we know it was the Syrian government who launched the attack. 

And what of the fact that the opposition has launched several chemical attacks against Syrian government forces -- even UN official Carla Del Ponte has discovered as much? What of the opposition stockpile of chemical weapons discovered by Syrian government forces?

What of the evidence that it may well have been the opposition that used some sort of chemicals to attack on August 21st? What of the Turkish government's discovery of stores of chemical weapons being held by the insurgents inside Turkey?

All this counter-evidence would be illogical according to the administration, because it does not fit into the logic of the administration. To the US administration, the Syrian government must have carried out the attack because they had the capacity and the will. Any evidence that others might have also had both of these must be discounted. It spoils the narrative.

White House flack Jay Carney explained it in exactly that way: "There is also very little doubt, and should be no doubt for anyone who approaches this logically, that the Syrian regime is responsible for the use of chemical weapons on August 21st outside of Damascus."

The problem is that even Obama's willing accomplices in the UK and France started seeing through this flimsy logic. First in the UK, parliament threatened a showdown over Cameron's rush to war. A mass exodus of support, first from Labour and then from his own party, took the wind out of Cameron's sails, forcing him to delay his plan for an immediate missile attack on Syria.

In France, the particularly bloodthirsty President François Hollande two days ago vowed that France was "ready to punish" Syria for the alleged chemical attack. Two days later, France now believes that Syria needs a "political solution" instead of immediate bombs.

Even the White House finds itself backing down from its bellicosity of earlier this week (one wonders how many of the warmongering taking points were penned by Susan Rice and Samantha Power), dampening down expectations over its "irrefutable evidence" of Syrian government responsibility for the attack. The intelligence backing up the Administration's claims is "no slam dunk" now says unnamed senior intelligence officials, suggesting that what it has is even weaker than then-CIA director's George Tenet's "slam dunk" intelligence on Iraq that itself turned out to be bogus.

In the recent history of US war disasters, this is a loaded term -- do they really mean that the intelligence they possess to back up Obama and Kerry's claims is even weaker than the lies that took Bush to Iraq?

Finally, Obama himself has had to back down from the war cries of his own administration. First step beck, he promised that the US attack would not be in pursuit of the "regime change" objective. The US attack would not be a game changer. Then yesterday he suggested that he would only send a "shot across the bow" in Syria -- "not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about." Of course, the people who pushed us into Iraq at the time were promising us a "cake walk," so this is not very reassuring.

All of this begs the question: if the US/UK/French/Turk attack is not going to be anything significant, if, as House Speaker Boehner wrote to President Obama yesterday, an attack is a "means, not a policy", then what is the point? What is the policy?

Perhaps this is what President Obama is contemplating right now, like the self-reflective effect of a bad hangover after a night of revelry with the humanitarian interventionists and neocons and their lurid tales of remaking the world, perhaps he is reconsidering his drinking partners. We can only hope. However, sadly, the safe money remains on bombs. It usually is.

Flickr/The Prime Minister's Office

What are you supporting?
When you join the
Ron Paul Institute
for Peace and Prosperity
You are supporting

News and analysis
like you'll get nowhere else

Brave insight on
foreign policy and civil liberties

A young writer's program
and much more!