Washington, London: A study in contrasts over Syria debate

WASHINGTON — The British Parliament spent Thursday slugging it out over Syria. The U.S. Congress stayed away. For the fourth straight week.

If you want a rousing debate over whether the United States should launch a military strike against the Syrian regime, you’ll have to head overseas or surf the Internet and find a British site.

“In Great Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron has called the House of Commons home from vacation to deliberate over the use of force in Syria,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, while “in Washington, D.C., crickets are chirping.”

Congressional leaders are being briefed, usually by phone, by Obama administration officials. Leaders are not ruling out summoning Congress back, but “it’s hard to say whether that could be necessary until we know what the White House is actually planning to do, if anything,” said Michael Steel, spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.

But many rank-and-file members want to know more, lots more, and dozens say they’re ready to return to Washington.

“We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict,” said a letter signed by 98 Republicans and 18 Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Some analysts suspect the real reason Congress is not in session to address the Syria question is that leaders, as well as the White House, fear political chaos. Debate could be intense and ugly, and a vote on whether to back military action is not, as intelligence officials might say, a slam dunk.

“The administration doesn’t want a vote. It would be messy,” said Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow in constitutional studies at the libertarian Cato Institute.

Both parties could endure very public schisms. A solid core of Republicans have signaled their distaste for military action. Rep. Lynn Jenkins, R-Kan., noted there is “no threat to our homeland,” a view echoed by others. Obama also faces trouble from his own party. “Frankly, I’m skeptical about getting involved in another action in the Middle East. I don’t think it’s turned out well,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest did not say Thursday whether Congress should return to Washington to debate or vote on any intervention in Syria, but he said repeatedly that the White House was seeking lawmakers’ consultation.

“I’m not ruling out future briefings that might include every member of Congress,” Earnest said.

And so, Thursday, London and Washington remained worlds apart.

At the Capitol, one could walk from the House of Representatives side to the Senate side, which takes about half an hour, and encounter only a half-dozen people, none of them members of Congress.

Parliament, on the other hand, was rocking. Members had been summoned for an emergency session to vote on military action, and Prime Minister Cameron explained the situation. Votes are expected soon.

In Washington, the longer Congress is gone, the harder it will be to call it back. Labor Day weekend is a popular time for campaigning. Two days after the holiday, the Jewish New Year begins at sunset, and the observance lasts for many until Friday night.

And then it’s the weekend, with lawmakers officially due back in Washington on Monday, Sept. 9, at least for a while. Eleven days later, the House is scheduled to leave for a nine-day September recess.

Anita Kumar and William Douglas of the Washington Bureau contributed to this story.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/29/200788/washington-london-a-study-in-contrasts.html#.UiBuNxZoZKN

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/08/29/200788/washington-london-a-study-in-contrasts.html#.UiBuNxZoZKN#storylink=cpy

UK Prime Minister Cameron loses Syria war vote

LONDON (AP) -- British Prime Minister David Cameron lost a vote endorsing military action against Syria by 13 votes Thursday, a stunning defeat that will almost guarantee that Britain plays no direct role in any U.S. attack on Bashar Assad's government.

A grim-faced Cameron conceded after the vote that "the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action."

The prime minister said that while he still believed in a "tough response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime, he would respect the will of Parliament.

Responding to the vote, the White House said that a decision on a possible military strike against Syria will be guided by America's best interests, suggesting the U.S. may act alone if other nations won't help.

The defeat was as dramatic as it was unexpected. At the start of the week, Cameron had seemed poised to join Washington in possible military action against Assad. The suspected chemical weapons attacks took place Aug. 21 in suburbs east and west of Damascus. The humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders has said the strikes killed 355 people.

Gruesome images of sickened men, women and children writhing on the floor drew outrage from across the world, and Cameron recalled Parliament from its summer break for an emergency vote, which was widely seen as a prelude to international action.

"The video footage illustrates some of the most sickening human suffering imaginable," Cameron told lawmakers before the vote, arguing that the most dangerous thing to do was to "stand back and do nothing."

But the push for strikes against the Syrian regime began to lose momentum as questions were raised about the intelligence underpinning the move. During a debate with lawmakers, he conceded that there was still a sliver of uncertainty about whether Assad truly was behind the attacks.

"In the end there is no 100 percent certainty about who is responsible," Cameron said, although he insisted that officials were still as "as certain as possible" that Assad's forces were responsible.

That was not enough for Britain's Labour Party, which is still smarting from its ill-fated decision to champion the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The party announced its opposition to the move despite Cameron's concessions, which included a promise to give U.N. inspectors time to report back to the Security Council and to do his outmost to secure a resolution there.

He also promised to give lawmakers a second vote in a bid to assuage fears that Britain was being rushed into an attack.

Cameron's impassioned pleas and hours of debate failed to dispel lingering suspicions that what was billed as a limited campaign would turn into an Iraq-style quagmire, and the prime minister lost the late-night vote 285-272. Some lawmakers shouted: "Resign!"

Tony Travers, the director of the government department at the London School of Economics, said Cameron had clearly miscalculated when he brought Parliament back early from its summer recess. He said the move had been unpopular even within Cameron's Conservative Party.

"Clearly this will be seen as a defeat, it suggests he got the politics wrong, both with the opposition and with some members of his own party," Travers said. "It's not great, it's not brilliant, nor is it the end of the world for him. He's lost votes before. It doesn't necessarily stop them taking further action, but they are going to have to start again really."

He said there was "not a lot" of public support for British military activity in Syria.

Defense Secretary Philip Hammond confirmed that British forces would not be involved in any potential strike, something he said would doubtless upset Washington - and please Assad.

"It is certainly going to place some strain on the special relationship," Hammond told BBC radio. "The Americans do understand the parliamentary process that we have to go through.... Common sense must tell us that the Assad regime is going to be a little bit less uncomfortable tonight as a result of this decision in Parliament."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_BRITAIN_SYRIA?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-29-17-43-07

On Syria, Obama says eyeing ‘shot across the bow’

President Barack Obama promised Wednesday that any U.S. military strike at Syria would be a “shot across the bow” that avoids seeing America pulled into “any kind of open-ended conflict.”

Speaking in a wide-ranging interview with PBS Newshour, Obama insisted he has not made a decision on how best to respond to the alleged massacre of civilians by forces loyal to Syrian strongman Bashar Assad using chemical weapons.

But “if, in fact, we can take limited, tailored approaches, not getting drawn into a long conflict — not a repetition of, you know, Iraq, which I know a lot of people are worried about — but if we are saying in a clear and decisive but very limited way, we send a shot across the bow saying, stop doing this, that can have a positive impact on our national security over the long term,” the president said.

That would send the Assad regime “a pretty strong signal, that in fact, it better not do it again."

Obama, making his first public remarks on the crisis since a CNN interview that aired Friday, rejected claims that rebels fighting to topple Assad were behind the Aug. 21 attack.

“We have concluded that the Syrian government in fact carried these out. And if that’s so, then there need to be international consequences,” he said.

“I have no interest in any kind of open-ended conflict in Syria, but we do have to make sure that when countries break international norms on weapons like chemical weapons that could threaten us, that they are held accountable,” he said.

Obama said the use of chemical weapons threatens “not only international norms but also America’s core self-interest,” pointing to allies such as Turkey, Jordan and Israel that neighbor Syria and noting the presence of U.S. military bases in the region.

“We cannot see a breach of the nonproliferation norm that allows, potentially, chemical weapons to fall into the hands of all kinds of folks,” he said, warning that Syria's civil war could ultimately "erode" Assad's grip on his chemical weapons.

Obama's comments came as Republican House Speaker John Boehner placed new pressure on the president to explain "personally" how military action would serve U.S. goals and why such action would be legal without explicit authorization from Congress.

Separately, the administration planned to give the chairmen and ranking members of key congressional committees as well as the top leaders from each party in each chamber a classified briefing Thursday on the case against Assad, two officials said.

http://news.yahoo.com/on-syria--obama-says-eyeing-‘shot-across-the-bow’-222156121.html

On the ground in Damascus: ‘It is us who will die’

 As a US-led intervention in Syria looms on the horizon, FRANCE 24 is one of the few Western media still on the ground in Damascus. We asked locals in the capital how they feel about the potentially-devastating conflict.

As Western powers debate a military intervention in Syria, the capital of Damascus is as busy and noisy as ever. Shops are open for business, public transport is running and the streets are choked by traffic.

FRANCE 24 is one of the only remaining Western media in the city, alongside CNN and The Wall Street Journal.

Our reporters have been asking locals what they feel about an impending military intervention, which analysts say could begin within days.

Army sites and government complexes stud the bustling residential quarters and crisscross streets of Damascus, making military targets in the capital hard to reach without the risk of collateral damage.

“[An airstrike] would be impossible because there are a lot of people in Damascus,” one woman told our reporters. “How could they hit such a densely populated city? If their intentions are humanitarian, why do they want to hit us?

“It's us who will die, it's us who will pay the price,” she added.

Concern for civilian casualties in the country has led many to site the catastrophic US-led war in Iraq, which has left at least 115,000 people dead since it began in 2003.

“I don't believe the Americans will intervene because they don't want to make the same mistakes they made in Iraq,” one man told our reporters. “We shouldn't forget that Syria is different to Iraq.”

http://www.france24.com/en/20130829-ground-damascus-attack-civilians-die-assad?ns_campaign=editorial&ns_source=FB&ns_mchannel=reseaux_sociaux&ns_fee=0&ns_linkname=20130829_ground_damascus_attack_civilians_die_assad

Syrians Scramble to Hide From Obama’s Humanitarian Love Bombs

“Every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?”

Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
August 28, 2013

Despite the US and Britain justifying an imminent attack on Syria in the name of “protecting civilians,” Syrians themselves are scrambling to hide from Obama’s humanitarian love bombs, with one Damascus resident telling Reuters, “We live in the capital. Every turn, every street, every neighborhood has some government target. Where do we hide?”

Although a torrent of criticism has forced both Washington and London to move towards some kind of symbolic gesture involving the United Nations, a senior US official told NBC News today “we’re past the point of return” and that US air strikes against Syrian targets would inevitably occur “within days.”

That leaves thousands of Syrians living in major cities already ravaged by nearly two years of civil war and western-backed Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks looking up to the skies in anticipation of a fresh delivery of cruise missiles – all in the name of “protecting civilians” of course.

As Reuters reports, “dozens of military sites are mixed in among the civilian population,” meaning that western attacks will almost inevitably mean more loss of life, not to mention the wider threat of a new war in the Middle East.

Syrians have now begun hoarding supplies, including water, batteries, and food, with “the fear in people’s eyes” all too visible, while banks have been inundated with customers attempting to withdraw all their money.

People are fleeing in an effort to rent houses away from military sites, but many cannot afford skyrocketing prices in safer areas.

“What about my friend?” asked a woman whose family was lucky enough to be lent a house in a safe area. “Her whole family lives in this neighborhood. There is no place for them to go.”

With Syria about to become the 7th country to be on the receiving end of the Peace Prize winner’s humanitarian lovefest, let us not forget the fantastic success that this policy of taking a complex political problem and bombing it had in Libya.

Just as it did in Libya, the US is about to become “Al-Qaeda’s air force,” paving the way for extremist jihadists to seize power and turn Syria into their personal thug-rule thiefdom.

Two years after Obama’s love bombs rained down in Tripoli, Libya is now plagued by violence and chaos, has seen its economy collapse, is controlled by brutal tribes who imprison and torture their alleged political adversaries, and has become “the main base for Al-Qaeda in the Maghreb.”

Now it’s Syria’s turn to experience what happens to countries who dare assert their sovereignty by attempting to fight back against an invasion of NATO and Gulf state-supplied terrorists.

Those Syrians who do manage to hide from Obama and Cameron’s humanitarian love bombs may escape death but the future of their country might not be much worth living for.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

http://www.infowars.com/syrians-scramble-to-hide-from-obamas-humanitarian-love-bombs/

U.S. Shipping Thousands of Cluster Bombs to Saudis, Despite Global Ban

Cluster bombs are banned by 83 nations. The world recoiled in horror when it learned that Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad's forces have killed children with such weapons.

But that isn't stopping the U.S. military from selling $640 million worth of American-made cluster bombs to Saudi Arabia, despite the near-universal revulsion at such weapons, and despite the fact that relations between the two countries haven't been entirely copacetic of late.

Cluster bombs spit out dozens, even hundreds, of micro-munitions in order cover a wide area with death and destruction. These weapons are used for killing large groups of people, destroying thinly-skinned vehicles and dispensing landmines or poison gas. Some of the Soviet-made incendiary cluster bombs used by Assad's forces during Syria's civil war are even designed to light buildings on fire and then explode after sitting on the ground for a while -- thereby killing anyone who gets close enough to try to extinguish the flames.

The irony of the U.S. selling one authoritarian Middle East country 1,300 cluster bombs while criticising the use of indiscriminate weapons by another isn't lost on the Cluster Munition Coalition, an international group dedicated to ending the use of such weapons.

"This transfer announcement comes at a time when Saudi Arabia and the U.S. have joined international condemnations of Syria's cluster bomb use," said Sarah Blakemore, director of the Cluster Munition Coalition, in a statement about the sale.

These weapons are loathed because in addition to killing enemy combatants, their fairly indiscriminate nature means they can kill plenty of civilians. And not just in the heat of battle. The little ball-shaped bomblets dispersed by cluster munitions don't always detonate on first impact. Often, they will just sit there on the ground until someone, often a child, picks them up and causes them to explode.

So far, 112 countries have signed an international treaty banning cluster bombs, with 83 ratifying it. Guess who isn't part of that club? China, Russia, most for the former USSR, Syria... and the United States, which is selling thousands Textron-made cluster bombs to the Saudis between now and 2015.

Despite the fact that the U.S. State Department says it "shares in the international concern about the humanitarian impact of all munitions, including cluster munitions" it's in no hurry to sign the ban. Foggy Bottom insists that "their elimination from U.S. stockpiles would put the lives of its soldiers and those of its coalition partners at risk."

That's because "cluster munitions can often result in much less collateral damage than unitary weapons, such as a larger bomb or larger artillery shell would cause," the State Department claims.

Still, the U.S. has actually put a moratorium on exporting cluster weapons that result in more than one percent of the bomblets falling unexploded to the ground, where they can wound and kill years after conflicts end. The CBU-105D/B weapons the U.S. is selling to Saudi Arabia don't fall under that moratorium, however. Fewer than one-percent of their submunitions fail to detonate. "Clear victories, clear battlefields," promises a Textrtron brochure for the weapons.

"The U.S. should acknowledge the treaty's ban on cluster munition exports and reevaluate the criteria for its export moratorium so that no cluster munitions are transferred," said Blakemore.

Don't expect that to happen anytime soon. The cluster bomb sale is just the latest in a string ongoing arms deals between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia that include dozens of F-15SA Strike Eagle fighter jets, AH-64 Apache attack helicopters, H-60 Blackhawk helicopters and AH-6 Little Bird choppers as well as radars, anti-ship missiles, guided bombs, anti-radar missiles, surface to air missiles and even cyber defenses for those brand new Strike Eagles. It's a relationship that's worth tens of billions to American defense contractors. And even though the Saudi and the American governments have recently been at odds over a range of issues -- Riyadh recently offered to replace any financial aid to Egypt's military rulers that the U.S. withdrew --  those arms sales are all-but-certain to continue. If the Saudis want cluster bombs, the U.S. will provide -- no matter what the world thinks.

http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/22/us_shipping_thousands_of_cluster_bombs_to_saudi_arabia_despite_international_ban

The Awkward Photo John Kerry Doesn't Want You to See

The White House is moving closer to military action in Syria, with many reports outlining that war is imminent.

Although President Obama hasn’t yet decided how to deal with Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry used his harshest language yet on Monday, accusing the Syrian government of committing a “cowardly crime” and a “moral obscenity” by using chemical weapons to attack civilians. There’s just one problem for Kerry: An awkward photo is going viral showing him and his wife having a cozy dinner with the Assads in 2009.

In February 2009, before the proverbial Sh*t hit the proverbial fan, Kerry led a delegation to engage Syria. It was a "frank exchange" of ideas and talk about the possibility of peace in the region.

According to AFP, Assad told his visitors that future relations should be based on a "proper understanding" by Washington of regional issues and on common interests.

Apparently, Kerry praised Assad as a “very generous man” back in 2011, something which conservatives reminded us of ahead of Kerry’s State Department nomination.

So here we are. Today, experts believe President Obama is likely to order a limited military operation in Syria – a cruise missile strike on military targets – rather than a sustained air campaign to topple President Assad. Whether or not military action will actually work is an entirely different question.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/61109/the-awkward-photo-john-kerry-doesn-t-want-you-to-see

The heir to Blair: PM makes 'moral case' for attack on Syria ahead of National Security Council meeting

No sign that Britain will wait for mandate from UN Security Council as David Cameron faces crucial test of authority with Parliament recall for debate..

Britain has a responsibility to take action to punish the “morally indefensible” use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime even without a UN mandate, David Cameron has suggested.

In his first public comments on the crisis, the Prime Minister has said that the Government was considering “legal and proportionate” means to “deter and degrade” Assad’s chemical weapons capability.

Syria crisis: UK and US vow that any military response is 'not about regime change' as Parliament is recalled

But Mr Cameron and his deputy, Nick Clegg, appeared to imply that such action could take place without a mandate from the UN Security Council – or without waiting for weapons inspectors to report on their examination of the site of the alleged attack in Damscus last week, during which hundreds are reported to have died. Foreign Office lawyers and the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve, are understood already to have examined the legal route for military intervention in Syria using a controversial UN “ humanitarian” exemption that allows action without the Security Council’s authority.

Britain is to seek UN Security Council backing for “all necessary measures to protect civilians” in Syria in a draft resolution that will be put forward to a meeting of the five permanent members in New York this evening.

A Downing Street spokeswoman said: “Britain has drafted a resolution condemning the attack by the Assad regime, and authorising all necessary measures under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons.

Western intervention in Syria is likely to take the form of limited cruise missile strikes against regime targets and sites identified with chemical weapons sites. It is expected to take place within the next 10 days.

Mr Cameron will today chair a National Security Council meeting to discuss possible military plans drawn up in response to the alleged chemical weapons attack. The Prime Minister spoke to US President Barack Obama ahead of the NSC meeting, a Downing Street spokesperson confirmed, where both leaders "agreed that all the information available confirmed a chemical weapons attack had taken place, noting that even the Iranian president and Syrian regime had conceded this." Mr Cameron and Mr Obama also "both agreed they were in no doubt that the Assad regime was responsible", the spokesperson added.

UK Foreign Minister William Hague, who is attending today's meeting, also called for the United Nations Security Council to "rise to its responsibilities by condemning these events [in Syria] and calling for a robust international response".

Writing for the Daily Telegraph, he said: "We cannot allow the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century to go unchallenged. That would send a signal to the Syrian regime that they will never face any consequences for their actions, no matter how barbarous. It would make further chemical attacks in Syria much more likely, and also increase the risk that these weapons could fall into the wrong hands in the future."

In echoes of Tony Blair’s argument that there was a “moral case” for the war in Iraq even without a UN mandate, Mr Cameron said the use of chemical weapons was “morally indefensible” and Britain could not “let that stand”. But unlike Mr Blair he insisted Western action was “not about getting involved in a Middle Eastern war”.

“I understand people’s concerns about war in the Middle East, about getting sucked into the situation in Syria,” he said. “This is not about wars in the Middle East, this is not even about Syria. It’s about the use of chemical weapons and making sure as a world we deter their use and deter the appalling scenes we have all seen on our TV screens.”

“It must be right to have some rules in our world and try to enforce those rules,” Mr Cameron added. “Any action we take or others take would have to be legal, would have to be proportionate, it would have to be specific to deter and degrade the future use of chemical weapons.”

The Prime Minister said there was never 100 per cent certainty or a single piece of irrefutable evidence of their use, but said the world had agreed almost a century ago they should not be used.

But his stance was attacked by the former Chief UN Weapons Inspector at the time of the Iraq War. Hans Blix said Mr Cameron “ doesn’t seem to care much about international legality”.

“As far as they are all concerned, a criminal act has been committed so now they must engage in what they call retaliation,” he said.

“I don’t see what they are retaliating about. The weapons weren’t used against them. If the aim is to stop the breach of international law and to keep the lid on others with chemical weapons, military action without first waiting for the UN inspector report is not the way to go about it.”

Although action based on self-defence has been dismissed as inappropriate by London and Washington, senior Foreign Office lawyers and Mr Grieve believe humanitarian intervention, based on “ overwhelming humanitarian necessity”, was correctly applied  by Tony Blair when he authorised force in Kosovo in 1999, and can be used again.

Mr Cameron initially focused on  the “humanitarian” exemption to plan action in Libya, but eventual UN backing rendered it unnecessary.

Following  the Kosovo action, the Foreign Affairs Select Committee criticised the “humanitarian” justification as being “ illegal” but nevertheless backed its use  as “legitimate”.

Russia has dismissed  the use of the humanitarian route as illegal. The country’s deputy Prime Minister, Dmitry Rogozin, went further by accusing the West of behaving like a “monkey with a grenade” over Syria.

Mr Cameron also announced that MPs would be given a vote on a motion during an emergency sitting of the House of Commons on Thursday to discuss Syria.

After speaking to Mr Cameron, Labour leader Ed Miliband said he would consider giving Labour backing to action but only on the basis it could proved to be legal.

“The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is abhorrent and cannot be ignored,” he said. “When I saw the Prime Minister this afternoon I said to him the Labour Party would consider supporting international action but only on the basis that it was legal, that it was specifically limited to deterring the future use of chemical weapons and that any action contemplated had clear and achievable military goals. We will be scrutinising any action contemplated on that basis.”

The Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg added that he agreed with Mr Cameron on the need for action.

“If we stand idly by we set a very dangerous precedent indeed, where brutal dictators and brutal rulers will feel they can get away with using chemical weapons on a larger and larger scale in the future,” he said.

“So what we’re considering is a serious response to that. What we are not considering is regime change, trying to topple the Assad regime, trying to settle the civil war in Syria one way or another. That needs to be settled through a political process.”

But the Prime Minister is likely to face significant opposition to any intervention and is likely to face intense questioning over how he can justify the legality of any action without a UN mandate.

Richard Ottaway, chairman of the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, said international law had changed since intervention in Kosovo, when intervention was justified on the basis overwhelming humanitarian need.

“That doctrine [now] only supports intervention with the backing of a UN resolution, so if China and Russia veto any resolution, then clearly an intervention would not have the legal authority,” he told the BBC.

He added: “Unlawful is probably a slightly exaggerated phrase. I think there is no legal support for an intervention of this nature rather than describing it as illegal.”

Andrew Bridgen, who sent a letter signed by 81 fellow Conservatives to Mr Cameron demanding a vote earlier this year, said: “The House is going to seek assurance on the grounds for action, that there is compelling evidence it is the Assad regime that launched the chemical attacks - that will need to be proved and explained.

“We will need the aims of any action and limits and scope of action, and information on who else will be involved.”

Syria and Iraq: The parallels

Is/was intervention legal?

David Cameron

The Prime Minister knows that intervention in Syria is highly unlikely to be authorised by a United Nations resolution because Russia and China would veto it. He insists that any military action will be legal, proportionate and a specific response to last week's attack on Syrian citizens with chemical weapons. UK officials argue that Syria has breached the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention which bans them, and that justifies action. But legal doubts remain.

Tony Blair

The former Prime Minister, who backed intervention in Syria today, failed to secure a further UN resolution authorising action in Iraq and relied on a previous one passed after the Gulf War. Lord Goldsmith, his Attorney General, denied claims he was pressurised by Blair allies to change his legal advice to give the all-clear for war but doubts about its legality have never been lifted.

Are/were the weapons' inspectors getting enough time?

David Cameron

The PM wants to study the report by UN inspectors who on Monday visited the site of last week's attack, though it is unclear whether they will be able to give a definitive verdict. But Hans Blix, who was the chief UN arms inspector in Iraq, warned today that the “political dynamics” in Syria are running ahead of the “due process”.

Tony Blair

The former PM clashed with Mr Blix, who complained he was denied the “space and time” needed to search for Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. Mr Blair was convinced, wrongly, that Iraq possessed them but was frustrated at the regime's alleged obstruction of the inspectors' work and their failure to find a “smoking gun” that would have justified war.

Has/had Parliament been properly consulted?

David Cameron

The PM today tried to defuse growing demands for Parliament to be consulted by recalling MPs  from their summer break four days early to discuss Syria on Thursday. But some Conservative MPs are demanding a Commons vote to authorise specific action; they doubt they will be granted that in case Mr Cameron suffered a humiliating defeat.

Tony Blair

The former PM conceded a Commons vote on Iraq after Cabinet pressure and  did win Parliament's backing for his Government's position. But during the build-up to the invasion, he was criticised for ignoring critics among MPs and denying a proper Cabinet debate. The long-delayed Chilcot inquiry into the conflict is looking closely at whether Mr Blair promised the US President George Bush that Britain would join military action a year before it happened.

Is/was his party behind him?

David Cameron

No. Many Tory MPs are worried that “mission creep” will suck Britain into an Iraq-style quagmire and want clear goals. They want hard proof that the Assad regime was behind last week's attack. In June, more than 80 Tories demanded a Commons vote before the UK sent arms to the anti-Assad rebels, helping to deter Mr Cameron from such a course.

Tony Blair

No. Some 139 Labour MPs voted against the Iraq war in March 2003, the largest ever rebellion against a Labour Government. Mr Blair won the crucial Commons vote by 412 votes to 149, was forced to rely on the support of most Conservative MPs. The Liberal Democrats opposed the war but Nick Clegg is arguing that Syria is very different and is backing Mr Cameron.

Is/was public opinion behind him?

David Cameron

It is not yet clear whether the British people will support limited action over chemical weapons. But after Iraq and Afghanistan, they are likely to be cautious about any intervention. A YouGov survey at the weekend found that three-quarters (74 per cent) oppose sending British troops to fight alongside anti-Assad forces and two-thirds (66 per cent) are oppose giving them full-scale military supplies.

Tony Blair

Before the 2003 invasion,  opinion polls showed that a majority of people supported military action, some by a 2-1 margin.  But the bloody aftermath and the failure to find weapons of mass destruction turned opinion round. A YouGov survey marking the war's 10th anniversary this year found that 55 per cent thought the military action was wrong and 30 per cent right.

Are/were we America's poodle?

David Cameron

The PM's aides  insist not, arguing that there is a growing international coalition for action to be taken against President Assad. Mr Cameron has been at the forefront of demands to help the Syrian rebels. So has France, which strongly opposed the Iraq war. British officials point to the Arab League's belief that the Assad regime was responsible for last week's attack.

Tony Blair

The former PM always denied the charge but never escaped its shadow. His close personal relationship with George Bush fuelled such suspicions, as did his desire to slay the ghosts of Old Labour's anti-Americanism. He could have pursued a “European solution” to Iraq but decided to “be there” if the US acted, even turning down a last-minute offer by the US President to let the UK opt out.

Andrew Grice

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-heir-to-blair-pm-makes-moral-case-for-attack-on-syria-ahead-of-national-security-council-meeting-8786783.html

Satellites glimpse ultra-powerful “black hole” whirlpools in Atlantic

The whirpools - never witnessed before - would suck down ships, debris and even living creatures..

Satellites have shown two mysterious 'black hole' whirlpools in the South Atlantic ocean - ultra powerful “vortexes” which suck water down into the depths.

The whirpools - never witnessed before - would suck down ships, debris and even living creatures, moving 1.3 million cubic metres of water per second.

Two of the black holes - or “maelstroms” - have been sighted in three months by physicists from Zurich and Miami.

[Astronaut recounts spacewalk drowning terror]

The powerful vortices of current have been described as ‘maelstroms’ and are ‘mathematical analogues’ for black holes – which is to say they do exactly the same with water that black holes do with light. 

The discovery could give new insights into how oceanic currents transport debris and may even have implications for climate change studies.

Astronomical black holes bend space and time into a perpetually collapsing vortex. Light itself bends around them, which enables astronomers to recognise their existence.

Similarly, these oceanic maelstroms funnel current into an almost permanent spiral, trapping debris, oil and potentially living creatures in a body of water. Hardly anything leaks out. 

The scientists used Edgar Allen Poe’s 1841 story ‘A descent into a Maelstrom’ to describe their discovery:
“The edge of the whirl was represented by a broad belt of gleaming spray; but no particle of this slipped into the mouth of the terrific funnel…”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/satellites-glimpse-ultra-powerful-“black-hole”-whirlpools-in-atlantic-151036336.html#qCRJLiC

California trying to strike out tax-exempt status for Little League, ‘discriminatory’ groups

A California bill that could strip tax-exempt status from Little League, the Boy Scouts of America and other “discriminatory” nonprofit youth-serving groups could come up for a final vote this week.

The first-of-its-kind bill, SB 323, passed the California Senate and sailed through Assembly committees to a floor vote, possibly this week.

But opponents are taking heart that there might not be enough votes in the state Assembly to pass the bill.

The chamber did not consider the bill in its Monday session, but may take it up when it convenes Friday.

The bill, introduced by State Sen. Ricardo Lara, names the Boy Scouts, Little League, Future Farmers of America and 19 other organizations as examples of groups that could be stripped of their tax-exempt status if found to discriminate based on gender identity, sexual orientation, nationality, race, religion or religious affiliation.

The measure also threatens tax-exempt status for public and private schools found to sponsor discriminatory youth groups. One critic said it could even threaten an exemption status held by a church.

“Traditional values regarding heterosexuality are being branded as the legal equivalent of racism, and so there’s the quite genuine fear that the tax code really is the battleground against the traditional churches,” said Alan Reinach, executive director of Church State Council, which opposes SB 323.

“It’s not about ‘live and let live.’ If the churches do not conform to the values of homosexuality, then we will lose our standing in society,” he said.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/california-bill-targets-tax-exempt-status-for-disc/#ixzz2dDgjaBiV
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Military strikes on Syria 'as early as Thursday,' US officials say

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

United States intelligence officials are convinced the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against rebels last week, and are building their case for military action without putting troops on the ground. NBC's Richard Engel reports.

By Jim Miklaszewski, Catherine Chomiak and Erin McClam, NBC News

The United States could hit Syria with three days of missile strikes, perhaps beginning Thursday, in an attack meant more to send a message to the Syrian regime than to cripple its military, senior U.S. officials told NBC News.

The disclosure added to a growing drumbeat around the world for military action against Syria, believed to have used chemical weapons in recent days against scores of civilians and rebels who have been fighting the government for two years.

In three days of strikes, the Pentagon could assess the effectiveness of the first wave and target what was missed in further rounds, the senior officials said.

Underscoring the urgency facing world leaders, the British prime minister called Parliament back from vacation and said it would take a vote Thursday on action, and U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the American military was “ready to go.”

A day earlier, using forceful language, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Syrian chemical attacks were a “moral obscenity” and said the regime of President Bashar Assad had not just used chemical agents but covered up the evidence.

On Tuesday, the United Nations said that its team investigating chemical-weapons attacks in Syria would delay its next outing by a day, to Wednesday. The team came under fire from unidentified snipers Monday on its way to check out the site of a suspected chemical attack near the Syrian capital of Damascus.

In Cairo, the Arab League said it held Assad responsible for a chemical attack near the Syrian capital. Qatar, Saudi Arabia and other countries condemned the use of unconventional weapons.

Support from the Arab League, even if limited, would provide crucial diplomatic cover for a Western strike on Syria. Action through the United Nations is unlikely because Russia, which supports the Assad regime, has a veto in the Security Council.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Syria crisis: Russia and China step up warning over strike

Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region.

The US and its allies are considering launching strikes on Syria in response to deadly attacks last week.

The US said there was "undeniable" proof of a chemical attack, on Monday.

UN chemical weapons inspectors are due to start a second day of investigations in the suburbs of Damascus.

The UN team came under sniper fire as they tried to visit an area west of the city on Monday.

A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron says the UK is making contingency plans for military action in Syria.

Mr Cameron has cut short his holiday and returned to London to deal with the Syrian crisis.

Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law.

"Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement.

Late on Monday, the US said it was postponing a meeting on Syria with Russian diplomats, citing "ongoing consultations" about alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria.

Hours later, Russia expressed regret about the decision. The two sides had been due to meet in The Hague on Wednesday to discuss setting up an international conference on finding a political solution to the crisis.

The Russian deputy defence minister, Gennady Gatilov said working out the political parameters for a resolution on Syria would be especially useful, with the threat of force hanging over the country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23845800

Obama says his father served in World War II?

Obama caught reading The Post American World......

A picture is worth a thousand words.

SOMEONE WAS AT THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME WITH A CAMERA.

IT WAS REPORTED THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA WAS FURIOUS THAT HE WAS CAUGHT ON CAMERA AND IT WAS PUBLISHED AND TRIED TO BLOCK IT.
The name of the book Obama is holding is called:

The Post-American World, and it was written by a fellow Muslim.(Fareed Zakaria)

"Post" America means: The World "After" America !"

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, In three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message.

I believe this is one photo that really

should be passed around.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=311924648943512&set=a.311925748943402.1073741827.100003779382551&type=1&theater

British Navy ready to launch first strike on Syria

Britain is planning to join forces with America and launch military action against Syria within days in response to the gas attack believed to have been carried out by President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against his own people.

Royal Navy vessels are being readied to take part in a possible series of cruise missile strikes, alongside the United States, as military commanders finalise a list of potential targets.

Government sources said talks between the Prime Minister and international leaders, including Barack Obama, would continue, but that any military action that was agreed could begin within the next week.

As the preparations gathered pace, William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, warned that the world could not stand by and allow the Assad regime to use chemical weapons against the Syrian people “with impunity”.

Britain, the US and their allies must show Mr Assad that to perpetrate such an atrocity “is to cross a line and that the world will respond when that line is crossed”, he said.

British forces now look likely to be drawn into an intervention in the Syrian crisis after months of deliberation and international disagreement over how to respond to the bloody two-year civil war.

READ MORE