The “Moral Obscenity” of Washington’s Empire

The “Moral Obscenity” of Washington’s Empire

William Norman Grigg

August 27, 2013

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-moral-obscenity-of-washingtons-empire/

John Kerry insists that it is “undeniable” that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack against civilians, and then made a “cynical attempt to cover it up” by hiding the evidence.

Several chemical weapons experts, including former US Chemical Corps officer Dan Kaszeta, have disputed claims that the Assad regime conducted such an attack. Yet from Kerry’s perspective, the absence of evidence that such an atrocity took place is irrefutable proof that it occurred.

The Syrian regime has been under relentless scrutiny by the Obama administration, which has been indecently eager to find or contrive the justification for an attack. The New York Times recently reported that administration officials have identified the Clinton administration’s “humanitarian” terror-bombing of Serbia in 1999 as a framework for a similar assault on Syria.

The NATO-led 78-day onslaught of Serbia followed reports of a “massacre” of ethnic Albanians in a village called Racak. That nearly abandoned village was controlled by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a hybrid totalitarian group supported by both Osama bin Laden and his quondam ally the CIA. The world was invited to believe that Serbian police had dragged innocent people out of their homes and executed them near a ditch in a miniature recreation of Babi Yar. Independent reporting on the alleged January 15, 1999 massacre revealed that the incident was actually a firefight between the US-backed terrorist guerrillas — who controlled the village — and Serbian police.

The regime of Serb strongman Slobodan Milosevic (who would later die in a UN-run prison cell at The Hague) was predictably corrupt and vicious, but it never posed a threat of any kind to the United States. Nor was it slaughtering ethnic Albanians in Kosovo: In 1998, the rate of death by violence in Kosovo — which was plagued with ethnic strife — was about the same as in Atlanta. What was needed, according to Clinton administration officials, was a “trigger” of some kind. The clash at Racak was thus re-purposed as a “massacre,” which led to an ultimatum being presented to Milosevic during “negotiations” in Rambouillet, France. The Clintonoids knew that Milosevic wouldn’t agree to their terms, which would have required that Serbia simply surrender Kosovo to international control. But this was what was intended: As one State Department official smugly remarked: “The Serbs need some bombing, and that’s exactly what they’re going to get.”

While the Obama administration is clearly following the Kosovo model in its campaign against Syria, it made at least one significant modification by orchestrating a false flag chemical weapons attack. A report last January disclosed an email exchange between officials of a British-based military contractor discussing a Washington-approved plan to stage a chemical attack in Syria that would be blamed on the government in Damascus.

That report’s credibility is buttressed by unassailable evidence of Washington’s previous use of surrogates to carry out chemical weapons attacks. Yesterday, just before Kerry theatrically accused Syria of a crime against humanity, Foreign Policy magazine publicized a newly declassified CIA document confirming that Washington had supported Saddam Hussein’s use of nerve gas against Iran in 1983. This occurred during a war that began when Saddam, with Washington’s support, attacked Iran.

The murderous cynicism of those who presume to rule us might be the world’s only inexhaustible resource.

Anti Federalist wrote:The “Moral Obscenity” of Washington’s Empire

William Norman Grigg

August 27, 2013

http://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/the-moral-obscenity-of-washingtons-empire/

John Kerry insists that it is “undeniable” that the Syrian government conducted a chemical weapons attack against civilians, and then made a “cynical attempt to cover it up” by hiding the evidence.

Several chemical weapons experts, including former US Chemical Corps officer Dan Kaszeta, have disputed claims that the Assad regime conducted such an attack. Yet from Kerry’s perspective, the absence of evidence that such an atrocity took place is irrefutable proof that it occurred.

The Syrian regime has been under relentless scrutiny by the Obama administration, which has been indecently eager to find or contrive the justification for an attack. The New York Times recently reported that administration officials have identified the Clinton administration’s “humanitarian” terror-bombing of Serbia in 1999 as a framework for a similar assault on Syria.

The NATO-led 78-day onslaught of Serbia followed reports of a “massacre” of ethnic Albanians in a village called Racak. That nearly abandoned village was controlled by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a hybrid totalitarian group supported by both Osama bin Laden and his quondam ally the CIA. The world was invited to believe that Serbian police had dragged innocent people out of their homes and executed them near a ditch in a miniature recreation of Babi Yar. Independent reporting on the alleged January 15, 1999 massacre revealed that the incident was actually a firefight between the US-backed terrorist guerrillas — who controlled the village — and Serbian police.

The regime of Serb strongman Slobodan Milosevic (who would later die in a UN-run prison cell at The Hague) was predictably corrupt and vicious, but it never posed a threat of any kind to the United States. Nor was it slaughtering ethnic Albanians in Kosovo: In 1998, the rate of death by violence in Kosovo — which was plagued with ethnic strife — was about the same as in Atlanta. What was needed, according to Clinton administration officials, was a “trigger” of some kind. The clash at Racak was thus re-purposed as a “massacre,” which led to an ultimatum being presented to Milosevic during “negotiations” in Rambouillet, France. The Clintonoids knew that Milosevic wouldn’t agree to their terms, which would have required that Serbia simply surrender Kosovo to international control. But this was what was intended: As one State Department official smugly remarked: “The Serbs need some bombing, and that’s exactly what they’re going to get.”

While the Obama administration is clearly following the Kosovo model in its campaign against Syria, it made at least one significant modification by orchestrating a false flag chemical weapons attack. A report last January disclosed an email exchange between officials of a British-based military contractor discussing a Washington-approved plan to stage a chemical attack in Syria that would be blamed on the government in Damascus.

That report’s credibility is buttressed by unassailable evidence of Washington’s previous use of surrogates to carry out chemical weapons attacks. Yesterday, just before Kerry theatrically accused Syria of a crime against humanity, Foreign Policy magazine publicized a newly declassified CIA document confirming that Washington had supported Saddam Hussein’s use of nerve gas against Iran in 1983. This occurred during a war that began when Saddam, with Washington’s support, attacked Iran.

The murderous cynicism of those who presume to rule us might be the world’s only inexhaustible resource.

 
The Clintonoids???
 
 
 
Why hasn't Big Media used Clintonoids earlier?
 

 
Because Clintonoids might beget Obamanoids?
 
 
 
Suggesting a medical condition rampant in Washington or some kind of remedy for it?
 

News Hawk wrote: 
The Clintonoids???
 
 
 
Why hasn't Big Media used Clintonoids earlier?
 

 
Because Clintonoids might beget Obamanoids?
 
 
 
Suggesting a medical condition rampant in Washington or some kind of remedy for it?
 

How about "teapartynoids"  or   "Republinoids" ...Oh wait a minute, that's saying something bad about the conservatives, that isn't allowed here.

TEAPARTYNOID!! I like it!!!

Yep....from now on we must use the term "TEA-bagger NVD" (non-vulgar definition)....lest we be singled out for censorship... which, in the past, we were assured the admin didn't approve of....until now.

Does it bother any of you at all, that Obama is using the exact same bullsh*t excuses that both Bush Sr. and Jr. used to justify war in Iraq?

Good god people, get a grip.

The Unitary Executive is getting ready to launch another deadly Middle Eastern war, and you guys are arguing about whose name calling is more lame.

FFS... 

Anti Federalist wrote:Does it bother any of you at all, that Obama is using the exact same bullsh*t excuses that both Bush Sr. and Jr. used to justify war in Iraq?

First let me say that nobody is joking about a move toward war but to say that Obama is as reckless as Bush/Cheney et al is stretching it a lot...I've yet to hear the proof positive of why/who we need to strike but I've also not heard the admin say foolish things like Assad sought to procure "yellow-cake from Africa". That's when I'll question Obamas decision on Syria

Anti Federalist wrote:Does it bother any of you at all, that Obama is using the exact same bullsh*t excuses that both Bush Sr. and Jr. used to justify war in Iraq?

Good god people, get a grip.

The Unitary Executive is getting ready to launch another deadly Middle Eastern war, and you guys are arguing about whose name calling is more lame.

FFS... 

Who said we are going to war in Syria?? You are the only that I have heard say that.

I think it's extremely insulting to compare Bush-41 with Bush-43. Bush-41 was a WWll veteran who was shot down in the service of his country, while Bush-43 had some phantom National Guard job protecting Texas from an invasion by Oklahoma. Bush-41 sent troops in to successfully protect Kuwait from a takeover by Saddam, but was wise enough not to do a regime change in Iraq. Bush-43's massive blunder is only history now.

News Buzzard wrote:I think it's extremely insulting to compare Bush-41 with Bush-43. Bush-41 was a WWll veteran who was shot down in the service of his country, while Bush-43 had some phantom National Guard job protecting Texas from an invasion by Oklahoma. Bush-41 sent troops in to successfully protect Kuwait from a takeover by Saddam, but was wise enough not to do a regime change in Iraq. Bush-43's massive blunder is only history now.

Very well said. Bush 41 isn't very proud of Bush 43...not at all.

News Buzzard wrote:I think it's extremely insulting to compare Bush-41 with Bush-43. Bush-41 was a WWll veteran who was shot down in the service of his country, while Bush-43 had some phantom National Guard job protecting Texas from an invasion by Oklahoma. Bush-41 sent troops in to successfully protect Kuwait from a takeover by Saddam, but was wise enough not to do a regime change in Iraq. Bush-43's massive blunder is only history now.

LOL - Yeah, Bush 41 was so honorable... 

When he wasn't running drugs and guns through Arkansas with his pal, Bill Clinton.

So, I tell you what: inform "your" president not to make the same "blunder" that W did.

Donzel wrote:

News Buzzard wrote:I think it's extremely insulting to compare Bush-41 with Bush-43. Bush-41 was a WWll veteran who was shot down in the service of his country, while Bush-43 had some phantom National Guard job protecting Texas from an invasion by Oklahoma. Bush-41 sent troops in to successfully protect Kuwait from a takeover by Saddam, but was wise enough not to do a regime change in Iraq. Bush-43's massive blunder is only history now.

Very well said.  Bush 41 isn't very proud of Bush 43...not at all.

Thank you. The old man must have a lot of sleepless nights!

Donzel wrote:Who said we are going to war in Syria??  You are the only that I have heard say that.

Obama says Syria chemical attack requires response

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/30/world/europe/syria-civil-war/index.html?hpt=hp_inthenews

Obama told reporters he had yet to make a final decision, but hinted at a military strike that sources and experts say would entail cruise missiles fired from U.S. Navy ships at Syrian command targets...

Anti Federalist wrote:

Obama told reporters he had yet to make a final decision, but hinted at a military strike

"hinted", how so? Isn't that a rather suspect conclusion, based on "hinting"?

The Obama Administration is so incompetent, that Jimmy Carter is smiling.

 

Donzel wrote:Who said we are going to war in Syria??  You are the only that I have heard say that.

Geesh...it's EVERYWHERE over the news outlets. You're relying on your TV?  
 
Earlier, you wrote you hadn't heard of Obama's birth certificate's many errors.
 
(But there are many "low-information-voters" (     )who live in your same "bubble").
 

 
Latest:
 

Obama began his presidency prematurely winning the Nobel Peace Prize and could end it being impeached for starting an illegal war without congressional or UN approval – violating both domestic and international law.

Yesterday 163 Members of Congress sent letters to President Obama telling him that under the US Constitution he is required to get congressional approval before beginning a military attack. The letter drafted by Rep. Scott Rigel (R-VA) had 140 signatures, 119 Republicans and 21 Dems. Rep. Barbara Lee also circulated a letter that had 53 signers, that calls on the president to seek congressional approval.

 
Where'd they find "21 Dems".