Obama’s Gulf Of Tonkin Incident

A Syrian chemical weapons attack makes no sense.

Both Russian officials and independent experts in Moscow heaped doubts today on the veracity of reports that Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad killed more than 1,000 people using poison gas in an attack on rebels in a Damascus suburb Wednesday.

“Russia isn’t persuaded by any of these reports. Nobody in Moscow believes Assad would use chemical weapons, especially now that he’s winning without them, and he’d be crazy to do so on the very day that UN inspectors are visiting Damascus to look into reports of chemical weapon use,” says Sergei Markov, a frequent adviser to President Vladimir Putin.

“It’s obvious to us that we’re looking at a well-prepared provocation, possibly staged by Qatar or Saudi Arabian intelligence, aimed at whipping up emotions in the West and triggering an armed intervention to aid the rebels. It’s clear the rebels can’t hope to win without such assistance from outside, so they are the only ones who have any stake in creating an example like this. Russia is not going to support any moves in that direction,” he adds.

Chemical weapons in Syria: How Russia views the debate – CSMonitor.com

Like Obama, Lyndon Johnson was the most liberal member of the Senate before assuming the presidency and escalating the Vietnam War with a fake military incident. Obama’s presidency is collapsing, which makes him a very dangerous and desperate player on the world stage.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Obama’s Gulf Of Tonkin Incident

  1. There Is No Substitute for Victory says:

    What everyone forgets is that in Texas and Keyna L-I-B-E-R-A-l spells T-R-A-I-T-O-R

  2. phodges says:

    Wow, that is in the CSM….that’s the kind of information they used to have all the time. LAtely they have just been another Neocon, Neoliberal propaganda rag.

    I guess what that really tells us is that the Elite are split on a course of action.

  3. scizzorbill says:

    I smelled a rat when I first heard the news. I cannot think of any benefit to Assad, and have not heard any good reason why he would do this. Big Stinky! Like global warming, the story is arranged to fit the agenda.

  4. Adam Gallon says:

    “and he’d be crazy to do so ”
    Mental stability doesn’t seem to be a strong point for Dictators.
    I’d suggest that opinion is split on how to handle him. Even the most gung-ho must have noticed that intervening in Afghanistan & Iraq, hasn’t exactly been a great success.

  5. Mike D says:

    I think this is backwards. The Russians have been supplying military equipment to Assad, so we know which side they’re on. Both of them know that the UN is impotent. They also know the US isn’t about to do anything directly. The best way to send a signal to the rebels that they’re on their own is to launch a chemical attack on the day the UN inspectors are around. What will the UN do? Issue a strongly worded condemnation?

    The narrative going into the 2014 election isn’t going to be we got out of Iraq and Afghanistan, (but we got into Syria.) There needs to be some domestic crisis, where the government comes to the rescue.

  6. mf says:

    Russia is a corrupt petro state led by a KGB man. Since when is the opinion of Russian government an authority for you?

  7. “…specially now that he’s winning without them…”

    What is the basis of the assumption that the regime is winning? Is there a tally somewhere like a football score card.

  8. kuhnkat says:

    Check and see whether the dead are mostly Muslims or Christians…

  9. Andy DC says:

    I don’t think LBJ was any kind of liberal in the Senate. He was a typical southern segregationist and did not support any big welfare programs, because none existed until he became President. I am sure he was able to bring home pork to Texas due to his position as majority leader in the Senate. But back in those days, that is what all Senators with any sort of power were expected to do, under the contraints of a budget which was tiny compared to today’s.

    The liberal pseudo intellectionals back in 1960 were horrified that LBJ was on the ticket. He, if fact was despised by that crowd, who considered him to be a crude Neanderthal. His sole purpose was to win Texas in 1960, by hook or by crook.

    • Richard T. Fowler says:

      Liberals are often horrified by other liberals. That means nothing (that’s relevant here). Kennedy was killed because he was a Trotskyite. Johnson was a loyal Communist, though perhaps not on the scale of Franklin Roosevelt, Nixon, the Bushes, or Obama. Johnson did not give the initial order to assassinate Kennedy. He may have aggressively pushed the idea with his superiors, but ultimately it probably would have happened anyway. As Vice President of the U.S., one does not assassinate one’s President without explicit authorization. First, because one will not almost certainly not succeed. And second, because if one’s team manages a serious attempt, one will pay an awful price.

      It’s time for people to snap out of it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s