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

Breaking: US Attacks Syria!
The Obama Administration has initiated a bomb and land-based missile attack against Syrian territory without permission from the Syrian government, without a request for assistance from the Syrian government, and without a UN Security Council resolution.

22 September 2014read on...

Turning Americans into Snitches for the Police State: ‘See Something, Say Something’ and Community Policing
If you see something suspicious, says the Department of Homeland Security, say something about it to the police, call it in to a government hotline, or report it using a convenient app on your smart phone.

22 September 2014read on...

NATO vs. ISIS?
NATO has struck in Iraq. Or, more precisely, two French Rafale warplanes bombed a storage depot in northern Iraq believed to be used by ISIS.

21 September 2014read on...

Congress Votes for More War in the Middle East
Last week, the House and Senate voted to rubber stamp President Obama’s war plans for the Middle East. Both bodies, on a bipartisan basis, authorized the US to begin openly training and arming the rebels who have been fighting for three years to overthrow the Assad government in Syria.

21 September 2014read on...

The Disastrous Myth of Airpower Victory
President Obama’s strategy to “degrade and ultimately destroy” ISIS depends crucially on precision bombing by drones and airplanes. The heavy lifting on the ground is supposed to be accomplished by our "allies" in Iraq and the Syrian opposition, but as any reader of the news knows, these allies are, to put it charitably, unreliable and prone to panic and/or treachery. So, despite Obama’s rhetoric, our new war against ISIS will be an air power war.



20 September 2014read on...

Anarchy in Washington: Is Anybody in Charge?
Pentagon chief contradicts Obama on ground troops – Obama contradicts him back

The President pledges "no combat troops" in Iraq.

19 September 2014read on...

The Tower Of Babel Comes To Paris: The Folly Of Obama’s War On ISIS
US imperialism was once a fearsome force—mainly for ill. Under the latter heading, Washington’s savage destruction of Vietnam four decades ago comes readily to mind. But now the American Imperium has become just a gong show on the Potomac—even as its weapons have gotten more lethal and its purposes more  spurious and convoluted.

18 September 2014read on...

Poroshenko in Washington: A Marriage Made in Heaven?
Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s visit to Washington tomorrow (Thursday) is the consummation of a marriage made back in February, when the Obama administration ripped up a compromise agreement between elected president Yanukovich and the rebels who were seeking to overthrow him. Overnight, the US government endorsed the rebels’ seizure of power, and it has not wavered in its support of the coup leadership from that point.

17 September 2014read on...

8 Reasons Why Congress Should Vote No on Training and Funding Syrian Rebels
Today Congress will vote on the McKeon Amendment, a piece of legislation most Americans haven't heard of. But the consequences of the vote today are grave: funding Syrian "rebels" will precipitate a new and wider war in the Middle East. Here are eight reasons why Congress should vote NO on the McKeon Amendment...

17 September 2014read on...

Ron Paul: War on ISIS is Foolish Continuation of 24 Years of US War in Middle East Ron Paul, speaking Monday with Erin Ade on RT, explained that it is “foolish” for the United States to wage war on ISIS in Iraq and Syria, noting that the new war is a continuation of 24 years of foolish US war in the Middle East. Instead of extending the war another six or more years, Paul says "it’s time to quit” and bring the US military back home.

Paul, who is RPI’s chairman and founder, minces no words in explaining his opposition to the US war on ISIS...

16 September 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!