Ron Paul: "Obama’s Syria Policy Looks A Lot Like Bush’s Iraq Policy"

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Dr. Ron Paul via The Free Foundation,

President Obama announced late last week that the US intelligence community had just determined that the Syrian government had used poison gas on a small scale, killing some 100 people in a civil conflict that has claimed an estimated 100,000 lives. Because of this use of gas, the president claimed, Syria had crossed his “red line” and the US must begin to arm the rebels fighting to overthrow the Syrian government.

Setting aside the question of why 100 killed by gas is somehow more important than 99,900 killed by other means, the fact is his above explanation is full of holes. The Washington Post reported this week that the decision to overtly arm the Syrian rebels was made “weeks ago” – in other words, it was made at a time when the intelligence community did not believe “with high confidence” that the Syrian government had used chemical weapons.

Further, this plan to transfer weapons to the Syrian rebels had become policy much earlier than that, as the Washington Post reported that the CIA had expanded over the past year its secret bases in Jordan to prepare for the transfer of weapons to the rebels in Syria.

The process was identical to the massive deception campaign that led us into the Iraq war. Remember the famous quote from the leaked “Downing Street Memo,” where representatives of British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration discussed Washington’s push for war on Iraq?

Here the head of British intelligence was reporting back to his government after a trip to Washington in the summer of 2002:

“Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

That is exactly what the Obama Administration is doing with Syria: fixing the intelligence and facts around the already determined policy. And Congress just goes along, just as they did the last time.

We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies put forth by the neo-con warmongers and the paid informants, like the infamous and admitted liar known as “Curveball.” But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before.

So Obama now plans to send even more weapons to the Syrian rebels even though his administration is aware that the main rebel factions have pledged their loyalty to al-Qaeda. Does anyone else see the irony? After 12 years of the “war on terror” and the struggle against al-Qaeda, the US decided to provide weapons to the allies of al-Qaeda. Does anyone really think this is a good idea?

The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground. That sounds an awful lot like how Vietnam started. Just a few advisors. When these few small arms do not achieve the pre-determined US policy of regime change in Syria what is the administration going to do? Admit failure and pull the troops out, or escalate? History suggests the answer and it now appears to be repeating itself once again.

The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
whotookmyalias's picture

Oh no, can't be. Obama ran on the platform of "not being like Bush".  Ron Paul must be wrong.

/sarc for those of you who confuse easily.

toady's picture

Obama promised...

They all promise!

I'll be surprised when they actually follow through. I'd even settle for no more promises.

ZerOhead's picture

"The president has opened a can of worms that will destroy his presidency and possibly destroy this country. Another multi-billion dollar war has begun."

Way too late to stop this shitshow from reaching it's logical and foregone conclusion already.

Just on a personal note however... if he really wants to bring Syria to it's knees so badly...  wouldn't it be quicker and less bloody just to send his Wall Street buddies over there to finish them off?

Joe Sixpack's picture

What do you think he is preparing the way for? Democracy (haaa, haaa, haaa, haaa haaa....).

Spanky's picture

We'll sell them all the freedom they can afford. ;>)

A Nanny Moose's picture

You will have Demockracy, you will like it, and you will beg for more.

James_Cole's picture

We found out shortly after the Iraq war started that the facts and intelligence being fixed around the policy were nothing but lies...But we seem to have learned nothing from being fooled before.

That's not true, a majority of Americans are against the arming of Syrian rebels. 

70 percent of Americans polled said they oppose doing so

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57589693/most-americans-oppose-armin...

Even the Iraq war barely had a majority.

Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval

.gov isn't interested in the common folks' opinions. 

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

I had the pleasure of eating dinner with my parents tonight.  After the pleasantries I opened with "So Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama wants to provide weapons to rebels in Syria.  But its not like the Rebels are Muslim Extremists or anything!"

My dad asked "What are they (the rebels)?"

"Muslim extremists!"

"We are waging a War on Terror at the same time as supplying weapons to Muslim Extremist Rebels..."

piliage's picture

Yep. We are killing them in Afghanistan and Iraq and supporting them in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, and Syria. I guess the theory is to stop Iran gaining control of Syria in the great Shiite Sunni game, but frankly, our hypocrisy stinks to high-heaven.

But I'm sure our crack State Department has everything under control....

whotookmyalias's picture

They will be run by a former JPM/GS Rothschild crony soon enough.

Zwelgje's picture

This Shi'ite vs. Sunni thingy is part of a grand divide-n-conquer strategy being employed by what is called The West.

Just like the Protestants were set up against Catholics and vice versa by the ruling elites of Europe not that long ago.

It is not 'organic' if you know what I mean.

 

El Diablo Rojo's picture

Even worse piliage - this administration will create exactly what it doesn't want, a new Persian empire.

Zwelgje's picture

What is wrong with that? Much better than the current PAX.

Ace Ventura's picture

Could be....although I think the odds are more tilted towards the establishment of a new Islamic Caliphate, versus a new Persian Empire. The former is considerably more dangerous than the latter.

fallout11's picture

"The war is not meant to be won, it is meant to be continuous. Hierarchical society is only possible on the basis of poverty and ignorance. This new version is the past and no different past can ever have existed. In principle the war effort is always planned to keep society on the brink of starvation. The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects and its object is not the victory over either [fictional boogiemen], but to keep the very structure of society intact." - George Orwell, 1984.

Spanky's picture

+1

 

.gov isn't interested in the common folks' opinions. -- James_Cole

 

And just what do we plan to do about it?

Damn it's late (just one more post dear, it's ZH), I'm tired, work's early, ain't nobody I know getting killed -- fuck it, I'll do something tomor... soon. Real soon.

TBT or not TBT's picture

Toady, George W was going to be the education president, remember. Events, gentlemen, events.

HulkHogan's picture

Notice that Education doesn't make it onto candidate's platform anymore?

Pay Day Today's picture

It would, if the student loan bubble had any room left to go.

toady's picture

The big lie from W, for me anyway, was the 'no foreign entanglements' lie.

Barry has him beat by a country mile though... His campaign rhetoric was to completely reverse what W started, and he doubled down instead.

HardAssets's picture

Not electing Ron Paul  - - -

another dumb mistake of the American people

Deo vindice's picture

Ron Paul: the best president America never had.

Race Car Driver's picture

Ron Paul is a chump magnet.

I don't understand why he gets so much face time on ZH ... he hasn't done fuck about anything, won't do fuck about anything - can't do fuck about anything ... nothing but a steady warm breeze of hot air.

Race Car Driver's picture

Oh, look ... anonymous downraters. Ron Paul chumps too lazy and braindead to defend their man with words.

Click the red button, little monkeys, and move along.

Last_2_Sense's picture

Get fucked dipshit. There, words.

auntiesocial's picture

Obama. McCain. Paul. hello? anybody in there? no clear cut choice for the interest of American People and the American Economy?

let me guess, you are a fevered Bachmann supporter. 

 

RON PAUL! 2016. 

tvdog's picture

Anyone who attacks truth-tellers like Snowden or Paul is a shill for TPTB. It makes it real easy to tell.

HardAssets's picture

tvdog - we probably agree on RP, but I disagree with you about opposing opinions. To me this sounds too much like the global warming pushers who call those who disagree names. If your position is strong, it will hold up to disagreement and debate. RP can handle such attacks with ease. - - -

HardAssets's picture

Ron Paul has always understood that you can't lead people where they don't want to go. He saw his role as asking questions and providing education. Only now, after all these years, has his efforts started to take hold.

IMO - there will need to be a massive economic crash (with all the social turmoil that comes with it) before the American people might be motivated to wake up. Hopefully, they'll remember some of the things that Ron Paul has spoken about all these years. As a long time conservative Repub, I thought he was a 'kook'. Of course, I only knew what others told me about him, not the knowledge and philosophy behind his positions. Its never too late to learn, but most people need to feel enough pain before theyre willing to drop their old failed notions. Hopefully theyll follow Ron Paul's example and choose Liberty . . . . rather than be fooled into choosing tryanny.

RaceCarDiver - now you may not know this, but RP isnt a dictator (and wouldnt want to be one). What exactly do you think he can 'do' if it isnt supported by the American people ?  Or does he just wave a wand and make it all better ?  Even if he had been elected, he would have faced a great deal of opposition from those who live off the system as it is. If RP had been elected, it would only have been the first step - - - and an indicator that many more Americans had stepped out of the false 'left' versus 'right' paradigm.

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Obama supporting the canabalistic, organ eating rebels in Syria brings new meaning tho America's "Hearts and Minds" interventionist foreign policy.

auntiesocial's picture

this is the part where the sheeples collective short term memory loss kicks in...

Oldwood's picture

This is a test, a test of the world's intelligence. They will keep pulling the same shit over and over again until we actually call them on it. Until then we are failing the test.

FMR Bankster's picture

This is some batsh*t crazy stuff. Getting involved in another war in the middle east. Sort of like jumping into the Vietnam/Cambodia conflict a couple of years after 1975. I wonder if Obama sleeps upside down and hanging by his feet?

Spanky's picture

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

pragmatic hobo's picture

meet the new boss ... same as old boss ... boy did we get fooled ...

BlueCollaredOne's picture

Who is this we you are speaking of?  

If you were fooled, read moar.  

Al Gorerhythm's picture

Tell me you didn't vote for Bush, if you voted. BTW, I'm politically agnostic.

Muddy1's picture

Bush:  "Weapons of mass destruction"

Obama:  "Chemical weapons"

The reality is that all chemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, but not all weapons of mass destruction are chemical weapons.

TBT or not TBT's picture

A Baathist regime bordering Iraq has wMD? Come on now.

Dr. Engali's picture

We have always been at war with East Asia.

otto skorzeny's picture

I'm thinking more of a Bosnia bomb-the-shit-out-of-anything-that-moves from the air type operation.

ronaldawg's picture

Nothing is going to happen in Syria. O'bummer is a fag Tawlker.

CaptainObvious's picture

I'm thinking it's gonna be a drone war.

"The Obama administration promises us that this is to be a very limited operation, providing small arms only, with no plans for a no-fly zone or American boots on the ground."

Drones can be counted as small arms, right?  And if there's no no-fly zone, the drones can bomb the entire country back to the stone age.  And there won't be any boots on the ground, since the war will be fought from a nice, clean bunker somewhere on a US military base in another country.

Don't drone me, bro!

Spanky's picture

+1

How terribly obvious, but of course you are Captain.

DawgAss's picture

FUCK HIM (The Magic Negro not, RP) AND EVERYONE IN DC!

A bunch of NO BALLS pricks and cunts, with few exceptions.

WAR, what's it good for" "NOTHING, ABSOUTELY NOTHING"

Spanky's picture

You missed a spot...

 

"WAR, what's it good for" "NOTHING, ABSOUTELY NOTHING" (except profits, pipelines, geo-strategic positioning for the next conquest, and big dick bragging rights).

 

There, all fixed up. Your welcome!