Expert: ‘Biggest Nuclear Threat To The American People Might Well Be’ Russia
By Candice Leigh Helfand
October 4, 2013 11:22 AM
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) – President Barack Obama recently welcomed the new Iranian government’s pursuit of a “more moderate course,” saying it should offer the basis for a breakthrough on Iran’s nuclear impasse with the United Nations and the U.S. He signaled a willingness to directly engage Iran’s leaders, tasking Secretary of State John Kerry with pursuing that diplomacy with Tehran.
“The roadblocks may prove to be too great, but I firmly believe the diplomatic path must be tested,” Obama said last week during an address to the U.N. General Assembly.
Last Friday, Obama made good on his promise of direct engagement when he spoke with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani during a telephone call that marked the first contact between leaders of the two nations since 1979, and expressed optimism regarding both Iranian-American relations in and of themselves as well as the continuation of discussions surrounding Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
In America, the concept of nuclear warfare was, for several decades, a frequent topic of media coverage and a prominent issue leveraged for American propaganda during the Cold War, which spanned 1945 to 1990. In the years following World War II – when the U.S. used two nuclear weapons to strike the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in what are still, to date, the only uses of nuclear weapons during war by any nation against another nation – the U.S. began development of its own nuclear weapons program at a significantly elevated rate.
There have been “reports” (mostly rumors) that US and Russian ships are paying a kind of “Chicken” game today and yesterday.
Fox News allegedly announced (I did NOT hear this personally and am trying to get confirmation now) that the US is attempting to see what the Russians are doing with their “landing ships” but it appears the US is trying to see if the Russians are pulling Chemical Weapons off the coast being brought to them by the Syrians.
If that is the case, there’s a REASON now that the US wanted to WHACK those sites. They gave too much warning, vacillated too much, and gave Putin an edge.
WASHINGTON — President Obama will address the nation Tuesday night on chemical weapons in Syria, as he and aides pursue a diplomatic proposal at the United Nations that has put military and congressional action on hold.
Obama spoke Tuesday with the leaders of France and the United Kingdom, and agreed to explore whether a Russian proposal to put Syria’s weapons under international weapons is workable, senior White House officials said.
The U.S. and allies discussed the proposal Tuesday at the United Nations, said officials who requested anonymity because negotiations are ongoing.
Russia — ally of Syria and opponent of U.S. military strikes — said Monday it would ask Bashar Assad’s government to put chemical weapons under international control and have them dismantled; Syria announced Tuesday it would accept Russia’s offer.
Statement on Additional Countries in Support of September 6 Joint Statement on Syria
On September 6, the United States and 10 other countries issued a joint statement on Syria, condemning in the strongest terms the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons on August 21 in the suburbs of Damascus and calling for a strong international response. The statement explicitly supports the efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
Since the issuance of that statement, additional countries (marked by an asterisk) have signed on to the statement and publicly support its content. The countries now formally supporting this statement are:
Republic of Korea
United Arab Emirates*
We welcome additional countries expressing their support for this statement and our continued efforts to hold the Assad regime accountable and enforce the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The statement will continue to be updated and can be found at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/foreign-policy/syria.
Text of Joint Statement on Syria:
The international norm against the use of chemical weapons is longstanding and universal. The use of chemical weapons anywhere diminishes the security of people everywhere. Left unchallenged, it increases the risk of further use and proliferation of these weapons.
We condemn in the strongest terms the horrific chemical weapons attack in the suburbs of Damascus on August 21st that claimed the lives of so many men, women, and children. The evidence clearly points to the Syrian government being responsible for the attack, which is part of a pattern of chemical weapons use by the regime.
We call for a strong international response to this grave violation of the world’s rules and conscience that will send a clear message that this kind of atrocity can never be repeated. Those who perpetrated these crimes must be held accountable.
Signatories have consistently supported a strong UN Security Council Resolution, given the Security Council’s responsibilities to lead the international response, but recognize that the Council remains paralyzed as it has been for two and a half years. The world cannot wait for endless failed processes that can only lead to increased suffering in Syria and regional instability. We support efforts undertaken by the United States and other countries to reinforce the prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
We commit to supporting longer term international efforts, including through the United Nations, to address the enduring security challenge posed by Syria’s chemical weapons stockpiles. Signatories have also called for the UN fact finding mission to present its results as soon as possible, and for the Security Council to act accordingly.
We condemn in the strongest terms all human rights violations in Syria on all sides. More than 100,000 people have been killed in the conflict, more than 2 million people have become refugees, and approximately 5 million are internally displaced. Recognizing that Syria’s conflict has no military solution, we reaffirm our commitment to seek a peaceful political settlement through full implementation of the 2012 Geneva Communique. We are committed to a political solution which will result in a united, inclusive and democratic Syria.
We have contributed generously to the latest United Nations (UN) and ICRC appeals for humanitarian assistance and will continue to provide support to address the growing humanitarian needs in Syria and their impact on regional countries. We welcome the contributions announced at the meeting of donor countries on the margins of the G20. We call upon all parties to allow humanitarian actors safe and unhindered access to those in need.
European signatories will continue to engage in promoting a common European position.
Syrian President Bashar Assad, during an interview that aired Monday morning, threatened “repercussions” from any American attack on Syria.
The Syrian leader, speaking with CBS News, said the U.S. can expect “every action” if America strikes. He suggested retaliation could come from the opposition, as well as his own government and its allies.
“You should expect everything,” Assad said. Asked to elaborate, he added: “You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government. … You have different parties, you have different factions, you have different ideology.”
Asked specifically if the attack could trigger more chemical warfare, Assad suggested the rebels would be the ones who would use them. He said that outcome depends on whether “terrorist” rebels possess those weapons, adding: “It could happen.”
Assad used the interview to challenge the Obama administration’s claims that his regime used chemical weapons in an attack that killed hundreds on Aug. 21. He said his soldiers were “in another area” at the time of the attack.
It comes as President Obama prepares to deliver a national address on Tuesday making his case for a military strike on Syria. The matter is currently before Congress, which will begin a set of votes this week on a resolution authorizing the use of force.
Obama on Monday also planned to make his case, in a string of interviews, for punishing Assad.
Top administration officials are heading to Capitol Hill for more classified briefings. And White House national security adviser Susan Rice is scheduled for a speech at a Washington think tank timed to the public relations blitz aimed at ensuring people the administration isn’t contemplating another commitment like Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the past week I’ve been seeing articles that keep going back to Infowars.com about this. Today Lindsey Graham is now saying it.
I don’t usually listen to, or believe ANYTHING that comes out of Alex Jones’ mouth, and less the Infowars “reporters” most of the time.
But, I’m posting this article, intact just because it’s important. Go to the link to read the original copy.
Lindsey Graham: Attack Syria Or Iran Will Nuke Charleston
There’s a reason U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (RINO-S.C.) refuses to show up for public meetings unless they are attended by his hand-picked supporters: He knows only a pre-selected group of ”sheeple” will sit in silence and swallow his increasingly shameless fear-mongering.
At an invitation-only breakfast for establishment Republican types in Mount Pleasant, S.C. this week, Graham said that if America doesn’t take military action against the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon by the end of 2014.
“I believe that if we get Syria wrong, within six months – and you can quote me on this – there will be a war between Iran and Israel over their nuclear program,” Graham said, according to U.S. News and World Report.
But the fear-mongering didn’t stop there. Graham says this conflict will come home to – of all places – Charleston, S.C.
“It won’t come to America on top of a missile, it’ll come in the belly of a ship in the Charleston or New York harbor,” he said.
Wait … what?
We’ve heard some over-the-top excuses in support of American military intervention in the Syrian civil war, but this one takes the cake.
More to the point, there is no compelling national interest served by getting involved.
“The national defense is a core function of government outlined in our constitution,” we wrote recently. “But in no universe is intervening in this conflict – on the side of terrorist organizations like al-Qaeda, no less – acting in defense of those interests. Intervening would, however, encroach on the sovereignty of another nation, incite anti-American fervor in the Middle East and fundamentally make our people less safe.”
The US President is emphasising that he only plans limited strikes on Syria to deter future chemical weapons attacks.
President Barack Obama urged Americans on Saturday to back him in launching an attack on Syria, as diplomatic pressure grew on the United States to wait for a U.N. report expected in a week’s time before beginning military action.
Fresh from a European trip in which he failed to forge a consensus among global leaders, Obama plunged into a campaign on radio and television to try to convince a skeptical U.S. public and Congress of the need for a military strike on Syria.
In Europe, pressure increased for delay. European Union foreign ministers meeting in Lithuania on Saturday blamed the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Syria on President Bashar al-Assad’s government. But they did not endorse military action and made clear the bloc wanted the United Nations to have a role in agreeing on an international response.
Pope Francis, who two days ago branded a military solution in Syria “a futile pursuit,” led the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics in a global day of prayer and fasting for peace in Syria, the Middle East and the world.
Obama, clearly still the reluctant warrior who rose to political prominence on his opposition to the Iraq war, emphasised he favored limited strikes on Syria to deter future chemical weapons attacks – not another costly and protracted conflict.
“This would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan,” Obama declared in his weekly radio address, previewing arguments he will make in a nationally televised address on Tuesday.
“I know that the American people are weary after a decade of war, even as the war in Iraq has ended, and the war in Afghanistan is winding down. That’s why we’re not putting our troops in the middle of somebody else’s war,” Obama said.
Obama will give interviews on Monday to the three network news anchors, as well as PBS, CNN and Fox News, more evidence of a “full-court press” strategy before pivotal congressional votes on military strikes in Syria.
The interviews will air during each network’s Monday evening news broadcast, the White House said.
Lawmakers returning to Washington after a summer break say many of their constituents have told them they do not think the United States should respond militarily to the August chemical weapons attack that Washington blames on Assad’s government.
The Obama administration says over 1,400 people were killed by the poison gas, hundreds of them children. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll said 56 per cent of Americans believed the United States should not intervene in Syria; 19 per cent backed action.
Obama is seeking congressional approval for a strike, but early vote-count estimates do not look encouraging for the president, with scores of lawmakers still undecided. The Senate is expected to take action next week. The House of Representatives will vote later, but the time is not set.
As the White House cranked up its campaign, CNN showed excerpts on Saturday from the gruesome aftermath of the attack taken from a DVD shown to lawmakers and compiled from publicly available videos on YouTube and other internet sites.
PRESSURE RISES FOR DELAY IN EUROPE
Many EU governments have expressed reservations about using military force to punish Assad, now fighting a 2-1/2-year battle against rebels in which more than 100,000 people have died.
In a carefully worded message, the foreign ministers of 28 EU governments stopped short of endorsing possible U.S. and French military action against Syria ahead of the U.N. report.
French President Francois Hollande said the report could be made public at the end of next week and he suggested that France might then wish to take the matter to the U.N. Security Council, a step that could further delay any action.
“When the (U.S.) Congress will have voted on Thursday or Friday and when we will have the inspectors’ report, likely at the end of the week, a decision will have to be made, including after possibly referring the matter to the United Nations (Security Council),” Hollande said, speaking from the southeastern city of Nice after a meeting with his Lebanese counterpart.
An iFop poll published in Le Figaro on Saturday found that 64 percent of the French opposed any kind of international military intervention in Syria, up 19 percentage points in just one week, with even more – 68 percent – opposing a French intervention in the war-torn country.
A senior Obama administration official suggested on Friday that the White House could wait for a U.N. inspectors’ report on chemical arms use in Syria before ordering U.S. naval forces gathered in the Mediterranean to hit Syria.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, who was also in Lithuania, said later that Obama had made no decisions about waiting for the U.N. inspectors and was keeping options open.
Apart from anything else, delay in attacking Syria might help the White House gather more support in Congress and among public opinion.
The senior official told reporters that during Obama’s discussions with other G20 leaders in Russia on Friday on the timing of any military response to the Syrian crisis, it was apparent that “a number of countries feel it’s important that the U.N. inspectors have time to report back their findings first.
“That’s entirely consistent with our timetable,” the official said. Final votes in Congress could come after the U.N. report is announced.
SCRAMBLING FOR VOTES
Supporters of military action scrambled for votes in Congress. House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi on Saturday sent her fifth letter to Democratic lawmakers urging them to back Obama, noting that Congress had voted overwhelmingly to condemn Syria’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction a decade ago.
The influential pro-Israel group AIPAC said it planned a major lobbying effort next week to try to round up support for military action, with about 250 activists in Washington to meet senators and representatives.
But it was unclear whether the effort was working.
UN agencies have drawn up emergency plans for a military strike on Syria but are determined to keep delivering aid in the stricken country, a top UN official said Friday. “We continue to update and look at our contingency planning” in case the numbers of refugees fleeing Syria rises, UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos said after a trip to Damascus. The United Nations has concerns about the safety of its 4,500 staff in Syria, she added. But Amos said: “We have a commitment to continue our humanitarian operations.” Amos said the mainly Syrian staff “want to continue to work for the good of Syrians” but “at the same time they are mindful of the impact that any possible military action might have on themselves and their families.” UN agencies and private aid groups already have problems reaching many areas in Syria because of fallout from the 29-month-old conflict which the UN says has left more than 100,000 dead. Eleven UN workers have been killed in the war. Amos, speaking by video conference from Beirut, said she had discussed lifting obstacles to getting approval for aid deliveries, convoys and visas for aid workers with officials in President Bashar al-Assad’s government. More than 4.25 million people have fled their homes in Syria and two million are registered as refugees in countries around Syria, according to UN figures. Amos highlighted the case of Lebanon. The UN humanitarian coordinator in Lebanon, Robert Watkins, said there are now 726,000 Syrians registered with UN agencies and the figure is expected to rise above one million by the end of year. The UN said this week that it would have to cut aid to more than a quarter of the Syrian refugees in Lebanon because of funding shortages. The world body has launched its biggest ever annual appeal, $4.4 billion, for Syria. Less than half has been raised so far.
Apparently the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs has released a new letter.
If anyone in America THINKS they are going to take our weapons, they have another THINK coming. In the form of hot lead. Do NOT let the Leftists in the United States kid you one little bit. They want your complete and utter subjugation and will stop at nothing to get it.
We ARE at war over this. The first shots were fired in Sandy Hook, lest anyone forget this. There are plenty of reasons to believe that was a set up. To date, no one has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the shooter was Lanza. No one.