By Anthony Cody

October 29, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Living In Dialogue” – The shocking video of an African American high school girl being violently grabbed and slammed to the ground has been seen and shared millions of times over the past few days. Most are sickened by what we see. This incident is sparking a much needed discussion over the use of police to respond to disciplinary issues within a school. Police tend to use force, and students they deal with become criminalized, setting patterns that continue into adulthood.

Unarmed school safety officers can be far more effective, as I saw in my 18 years in the classroom in Oakland. At our middle school of about a thousand students, we had a small team of safety officers, led for many years by Mr. Obee. Mr. Obee was respectful of students, and had a calm and steady presence in the halls. I never saw him or other safety officers initiate the use of force at our school.

There is a related issue that has smoldered under the surface for decades. While all fifty states have laws against intentional cruelty to animals, in 19 states it is legal to paddle students for misbehavior. Recent attention has been drawn to the fact that African American and disabled students are more likely to be suspended or expelled– and this pattern is seen in the use of corporal punishment as well. This report from Sarah Carr shows that African American students are physically punished at higher rates. Disabled students are likewise more likely to be beaten or restrained, and this can cause lasting harm.

The US Supreme Court, in a 1977 decision called Ingraham V Wright, upheld the constitutionality of corporal punishment for school children. This decision was used as the basis to dismiss a 2014 lawsuit brought by a Mississippi student who fainted and fell while being paddled, suffering a broken jaw.

A Tennessee parent, George Worley, has been speaking out on this issue. He wrote to me:

I've been trying to be a voice for children's rights almost daily for 7 1/2 years!  I can't focus on much else because I care about kids.  Handcuffed kids is just the tip of the iceberg!  The National Disability Rights Network published a report in 2009, "School is Not Supposed to Hurt" telling of horrific incidents of children restrained – even smothered to death at school.

My 3 children attended schools in an unresponsive paddling district (Houston Co. Schools) Erin, TN and overheard classmates being paddled in hall just outside class then immediately faced humiliation as they returned to their seat.  Our grandson will start kindergarten in a couple of years and we don't want him hit or traumatized by school employees.  We have asked our local school board to prohibit corporal punishment three times since 2008 and they ignore us because state law allows corporal punishment without parental consent. Most school districts around us banned corporal punishment decades ago and it is prohibited in Nashville Metro Public Schools.

This documentary, The Board of Education,  reveals the disturbing facts around this officially sanctioned abuse.

The entire 32 minute film can be viewed here:

Action on this issue in Congress has been thwarted in the past by politicians like John Kline, who view this as federal overreach, and believe states ought to be allowed to set policy in this area. According to this report by ProPublica, two organizations, the American Association of School Administrators and the National School Boards Association both opposed legislation to halt corporal punishment introduced by Tom Harkin back in 2012.

In his 1995 book, "Profiles in Character," Jeb Bush suggested that if more children were paddled in school there would be fewer school shootings. Florida, where Bush was governor, is one of the 19 states that allows paddling.

While many schools ask parents to sign forms giving them permission to paddle their children, this is sometimes ignored, and children are paddled anyway, as in this Florida case. The parent in this case was left with no recourse as Florida law protects principals and teachers from lawsuits over such abuse.

This map, created by ProPublica, shows the policies in place in states around the nation.

This month Congresswoman Judy Chu introduced the Children's Bill of Rights which features 22 principles meant to protect children. Chu said,

The Children's Bill of Rights solidifies our commitment to all of the children in our nation. It gives a comprehensive framework that ensures children are free of abuse and neglect, have quality education and a healthy environment.

Congressman Alcee Hastings of Florida introduced a bill last May called HR 2268, Ending Corporal Punishment in Schools Act of 2015. The bill would remove federal education funds from states that continue to allow corporal punishment. If you support such legislation, pleasecontact your representative here. and encourage organizations such as the National School Boards Association and the American Association of School Administrators to support it as well.

While the Spring Valley High school incident has rightly focused attention on the use of police on school campuses, we should also take this opportunity to address other forms of violence routinely inflicted on children.

What do you think? Is it time to get rid of corporal punishment?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43269.htm

By Gilad Atzmon

Video of seminar at Gothenburg, Sweden (October 18) .

Gilad Atzmon speaks about Zionism, Jewish Identity, and Political Jewry. He explains Jewish satellite opposition as a refined form of controlled opposition. Atzmon explains that this form of proxy opposition is spontaneous in its nature – not conspiratory, but is exploited nonetheless to avoid criticism of international Jewish political affairs.

Posted October 29, 2015

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43273.htm

The Chilcot Inquiry, "Sir Cover Up" and The House of Lords

By Felicity Arbuthnot

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists." (J.Edgar Hoover, 1895-1972.)

October 29, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Global Research” – Did the Government believe the claims about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or was the aim regime change, which has no basis whatsoever in international law? Was this the real motivation? Secondly, when was the decision taken to go to war? Was it at Crawford or Camp David, in April 2002, (Lord Morris of Aberavon, House of Lords, October 22, 2015

*      *      *

"Sir Cover Up"

Just five days after it was revealed (1) that former British Prime Minster Tony Blair and then President George W. Bush had made a pact to attack Iraq and overthrow the country's sovereign government a full year before the invasion took place – as Blair continued to mislead government and populace stating that diplomacy was being pursued and no decisions made – another snake has slithered from under the hay (as the Arab saying goes) in the form of Sir Jeremy Heywood.

Sir Jeremy who has been unkindly dubbed "Sir Cover Up" by sections of the media is Prime Minister David Cameron's Cabinet Secretary, thus the UK's top Civil Servant.

According to the Daily Mail, Sir Jeremy has: "insisted he did not deserve his reputation as the secretive and manipulative power behind the throne" and was "frustrated" at his public portrayal.

However:

"Sources close to the Iraq Inquiry claim it was held up for months while chairman Sir John Chilcot argued with Sir Jeremy about which documents could be put in the public domain.

"In the end, Sir Jeremy insisted that 150 messages between Tony Blair and George Bush in the run-up to the 2003 war must be censored. Only the 'gists' of the messages and selected quotes will be released. (Emphasis mine.)

"Former Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said it was 'wholly inappropriate' that Sir Jeremy had been involved in decisions on the Iraq Inquiry, given his role as Mr. Blair's Private Secretary at the time of the war." (2)

Sir Jeremy was Principal Private Secretary to Tony Blair from June 1999 to July 2003 andwould thus have been party to every step of the scheming and untruths about the invasion and surely the plotting between Bush and Blair to attack, during their April 2002, three day meeting at the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas. (See 1.)

Subsequently Heywood stepped in to the same position when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister after Blair's resignation, a post he held between January 2008 and May 2010, so would also have been party to the plans for and structure of the Chilcot Inquiry in to the war, which was set up by Brown. Thus those involved in the bloodbath and invasion, convened the Inquiry in to the illegality.

Gordon Brown as Blair's Chancellor of the Exchequer, wrote the cheques for the years of illegal UK bombings of Iraq and for the UK's participation in "Operation Iraqi Liberation" (OIL.) He also wrote the cheques for Britain's part in the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan.

According to Ministry of Defence figures, the total cost of UK military operation in Iraq, 2003-2009, was £8.4 Billion – ongoing since they are back bombing, with Special Forces in Northern Iraq – and it would be unsurprising if also elsewhere in the country, given Britain's duplicitous track record. To 2013 the cost of UK operations in Afghanistan reached £37 Billion, also ongoing.

David Cameron who voted to attack Iraq told a news programme at the time: "You've got to do what you think right, even if it's unpopular …", near mirroring Blair's "I know I'm right" of the same time. Cameron admires Blair, regarding him as a "mentor." At every level of government past and present, there are vested interests in the truth on Iraq never coming out.

Cameron's words on his election as Prime Minister come to mind again: "We're all in it together."

Of Sir Jeremy, political commentator Peter Oborne has written: "Heywood is a perfect manifestation of everything that has gone so very wrong with the British civil service over the past 15 years." (3)

House of Lords Debate:  Prelude to a Criminal Indictment of Tony Blair?

On Thursday, 22nd October, in a debate in the House of Lords, Tony Blair's former Attorney General (May 1997-July 1999) Lord Morris of Aberavon cited the "scandalous delay" in producing the Chilcot Report.

Sir John Chilcot's Inquiry took evidence between November 2009 and 2nd February 2011. Costing £10 million (and rising) the final Report is now not expected until summer 2016 and maybe even sometime in 2017.

The families and friends of the 179 British service people who died had been "badly let down" by the delays, stated his Lordship. Indeed, but, tragic as the whole Iraq horror is for the UK's bereaved, their sons, daughters, relatives, signed up to join the armed forces, trained extensively in killing other human beings and had the lawful right, if in conscience they believed it wrong, illegal, to refuse to serve.

In their debate (4) their Lordships devoted no time to the grief of the relatives of the over one million Iraqi dead, the 800,000 Iraqi children who have lost one or both parents, the million widows, the maimed, the limbless, those who lost their minds, homes, all, in the horror, who also are "badly let down", their need for answers paramount. Only Lord Dykes in just two lines referred to: "… the fate of Iraqi civilians. That should be a substantial part of this report."

Lord Dykes also encapsulated the hitherto unspoken questions:

*"Why was it so important for them to turn on Saddam Hussein if regime change was not the main driver?

*"Why did Tony Blair have those embarrassing exchanges in 2002 when there was no question of there being any declaration of war?

*"Why did the then Government ignore the instinct and feelings of 1.5 million people marching down Piccadilly to protest about what was still an illegal war?

*"Why did the Americans and the British ignore the wise advice of the French Government under President Chirac and Foreign Secretary Dominique de Villepin about the mistake of going to war on that occasion?"

In a surely clear reference to Sir Jeremy Heywood, Lord Morris said that: "…  the saddest feature of the inquiry process was the 'strenuous effort' of the Cabinet Office to block the committee from having access to 'swathes of vital documentation,' including notes from Blair to Bush" adding: " Respect for good governance is undermined if Reports don't see the light of day before issues become dimmed in public memory."

Lord Parekh also referred to the "delay" caused by: "the dispute over access to various documents", Sir Jeremy's spectre stalked the Chamber:

"For example, it took nearly a year to obtain the Blair-Bush correspondence and the notes Mr Blair is supposed to have left with Mr Bush, to read them and to decide whether to include them in the report."

Baroness Falkner was surely also referring to Blair and Cameron's ally, "Sir Cover Up" when she said:

"Looking at the sequencing of events, it is clear that there was some kind of stand-off between the Cabinet Secretary and the Inquiry team, which lasted for a while … it took from July 2012 to January 2015 to reach an agreement on publishing the Blair-Bush correspondence."

And does that refer to the "censored" version?

Lady Falkner made a vital point regarding David Cameron's desire to emulate Blair in visiting a full scale "Shock and Awe" on another devastated country which poses Britain no threat and which would be as unlawful as Iraq:

"I want to pick up the issue of our continuing intervention in the Middle East. Let us go back to the August 2013 vote on not intervening in Syria. We as a country cannot, and should not, make a decision on that until we know of our hand in setting that region ablaze in the first instance. That is the least we owe the country."

Earl Attlee had hands on experience having served as a Territorial Army Officer in Iraq during the Invasion had clearly had enough of prevarications:

"I do not believe that democratic leaders can lead a country to war without being held to account for the decisions that they made on our behalf. I could see the 'dodgy dossier' for what it was … "

Baroness Williams was equally scathing, demanding: "… the truest possible account of this, which I think is the second-gravest mistake ever made in the history of the United Kingdom's foreign policy after the end of the Second World War."

Comparing the Iraq disaster to the 1956 Suez crisis in "scale" and "effect", she stated:

"Today, when we look at what has been tragically not only an attempt to try to invade Iraq but, perhaps more crucially, an attempt to see the Middle East fade away into a situation where there is almost no legally available support, let us not forget that an invasion based on the argument that you need regime change has no place in international law and no place in the United Nations." (Emphasis mine.)

In context, Suez has been described (5) as: "… one of the most important and controversial events in British history since the Second World War. Not only did Suez result in deep political and public division in Britain, it also caused international uproar."

"It has come to be regarded as the end of Britain's role as one of the world powers and as the beginning of the end for the British Empire."

Suez led to the downfall of Prime Minister Anthony Eden whom, it was widely believed, had mislead Parliament over the degree of collusion between Britain and Israel.

Tony Blair also mislead Parliament, including over the extent of his collusion with George W. Bush. Ironically he has also been described as: "having an unremitting record of bias toward Israel." (Electronic Intifada, 29th June 2007.) When he was – Orewellianly – appointed "Middle East Peace Envoy", he was described as: "A true friend of the State of Israel" by then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and: "a very well appreciated figure in Israel" by then Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni.

Eden and Blair may have more in common regarding their actions in the Middle East than meet the eye. Eden however simply sunk into obscurity whereas the clamour for Blair to account for his actions grow ever louder. The petition to Parliament for his arrest for war crimes and misleading the nation has nearly reached the required 10,000 when it is mandatory for the Prime Minister to respond. At 100,000 a Parliamentary debate can be called.

"Dead-End Road" towards a War Crimes Trial?

The Leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn told BBC Newsnight that Blair could see a war crimes trial over the: "illegal Iraq invasion."

www.arrestblair.org established by journalist George Monbiot: "offers a reward to people attempting a peaceful citizen's arrest of the former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, for crimes against the peace." So far five credible attempts have been made and around £13,000 paid out.

As events are unfolding there may soon be no more wriggle room for all those involved in the lies and cover ups. Their Nuremberg may yet await. It is owed to those who lost their lives for a pack of lies. For the people of Iraq it is a sacred accounting, a debt of ultimate honour and a woefully inadequate apology which might at least demand reparations..

Notes:

1.     http://www.globalresearch.ca/tony-blairs-deal-in-blood-with-george-w-bush-to-attack-iraq-one-year-before-the-march-2003-invasion/5483029

2.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3279702/Don-t-call-Sir-Cover-Britain-s-civil-servant-Jeremy-Heywood-rejects-claims-muzzling-ministers-Heathrow.html

3.     http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sir-jeremy-heywood-the-most-powerful-751584

4.     http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/151022-0002.htm#15102244000633

5.     http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/dept/scwmss/projects/suez/suez.html

6.     https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108495

By Peter Van Buren

October 29, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “We Meant Well” –  The United States does not formally acknowledge the existence of Delta Force, and rarely mentions the names of any of its members, even after they leave the service.

Unlike the SEALs, who seem to be prolific writers, Delta operators keep to themselves. Most of the unit's actions abroad are never mentioned publicly, and when an operator is killed in combat, often the death goes unmentioned in the press, or attributed sometime later to a training accident.

So the very public attention given at the highest levels in Washington to the combat death of Master Sergeant Joshua Wheeler was more than a little significant.

Wheeler was not only acknowledged as having fought with Delta, but his photo was widely published. That in itself is usually a no-no, for fear of linking him to others and outing active duty Delta. His place of death, on the ground, deep inside Iraq, on a strike mission, was explicit, with only a little b.s. thrown in about how Delta was present to provide security for the Kurdish raiding forces seeking to free some hostages. Well, well, nobody in their right mind believes America's finest special forces are sent out to provide security for a bunch of gussied up militiamen.

That all within the context that the president of the United States has made it explicit that his war against Islamic State would not involve any American "boots on the ground." Well, Sergeant Wheeler most definitely was an example of boots on the ground. There were an awful lot of reasons to have said nothing about Wheeler, and instead much has been said.

So why all the public attention to Wheeler's death, and why now?

One reason stands out: we, the public, are being readied for a larger U.S. combat role in Iraq and Syria, one big enough that it will be hard to keep hidden.

The circumstances of Wheeler's death are picture perfect for such a plan. He was a revered hero simply by the nature of the unit he served with. He was fighting with about the only competent and pro-American force left in the Middle East, the Kurds. He was fighting the most evil enemy of America (for now), Islamic State. He was on a successful rescue mission; hostages were freed, prisoners released, some IS bad guys dispatched. And the whole thing was convenientlyvideotaped— a videotaped special forces raid. How often do you see that? You don't.

The whole could not be more palatable to an American public perhaps just a little bit weary of war in the Middle East.

Now hear this: in an "exclusive," meaning the entire story was handed intact to a single reporter to jot down and print, The Hill reports"top leaders at the Pentagon are considering a range of options to bolster the military campaign against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), including embedding some U.S. troops with Iraqi forces… A second option sent to Pentagon leaders would embed U.S. forces with Iraqis closer to the battlefield, at the level of a brigade or a battalion. Some of the options sent to Pentagon leaders would entail high risk for U.S. troops in Iraq and require more personnel."

Timing? Couldn't be better. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine General Joseph Dunford (himself just back from Iraq) will discuss the options when they testify today, October 27, in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. They will no doubt raise Wheeler's name.

I don't like to traffic in conspiracy theories, but if you can put these pieces together in another way without having to use the word "coincidence" a couple of times, I'd be interesting in what you have to say. Otherwise, hang on, the United States is doubling down in the quagmire of Iraq. Again.

Peter Van Buren, a 24-year veteran of the State Department, spent a year in Iraq. Following his book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, the Department of State began proceedings against him. Through the efforts of the Government Accountability Project and the ACLU, Van Buren instead retired from the State Department on his own terms.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43268.htm

By Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard

October 29, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –  Speaking with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Tulsi explains why the US allying with Islamist extremists to overthrow Syrian President Assad is an illegal, counterproductive war that will cause even more human misery in the region and help ISIS and other Islamist extremists take over all of Syria. Instead of once again being distracted by trying to get rid of a secular dictator, Tulsi explains, the US must stay out of counter productive wars and focus on defeating the Islamist extremists who have declared war on America.

Tulsi Gabbard is the United States Representative for Hawaii’s second congressional district since 2013. She is also a vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43272.htm

By Ray McGovern

October 29, 2015 “Information Clearing House” – “Consortiumnews”– "To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war," as Sir Winston Churchill put it at a White House luncheon on June 1954. The aphorism applies in spades today as the U.S., Russia and other key countries involved in troubles in Syria decide whether to jaw or to war.

Russia's recent military intervention in Syria could open up new possibilities for those working for a negotiated solution – or not. There does seem to be considerable overlap in U.S. and Russian interests and objectives.

For instance, both sides say they want to suppress terrorism, including the Islamic State (also known as ISIL, ISIS or Daesh) and Al Qaeda's affiliate, the Nusra Front, and both the U.S. the Russia talk about the need for political reconciliation among Syria's disparate religious and ethnic groups. The chief disagreement is over the future of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, whether he "must go," as U.S. officials insist, or whether that issue should be left to the ballots of the Syrian people, the view favored by Russia.

Yet, what happens in the next week or so – whether it turns out to be a belated "jaw-jaw" or an escalated "war-war"– will have a significant effect on bilateral U.S.-Russian relations, as well as developments in Syria, Iraq and the whole neighborhood, which now includes Europe because of the destabilizing flow of refugees.

So, I think it makes sense for me to undertake what we did at some of the best moments inside the CIA's analytical branch: view a crisis from where the other side stood and thus project how an adversary (or a friend) might react to a U.S. initiative. A common trap in intelligence analysis is mirror-imaging – assuming that others, whether adversaries or friends, look at facts and intentions the same way we do.

It can be helpful to step into the other side's shoes and consider how its leaders are likely to see us. I make a stab at that below.

In what follows, I imagine myself working within Russia's Foreign Intelligence Service (the SVR, Russia's CIA equivalent) in the analysis office responsible for preparing The President's Daily Brief for President Vladimir Putin. I further imagine that his daily brief resembles what the U.S. Intelligence Community prepares for the U.S. President. So, I pattern the item below after the (now declassified) PDB for President George W. Bush that – on Aug. 6, 2001 – famously warned him, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S." (In my paper, intelligence assessments are presented in italics.)

The President's Daily Brief

Oct. 28, 2015

Re Syria: Obama Trying to Fend Off US Hawks

President Obama is under severe pressure from senior military and intelligence officials and Congress to raise the ante in Syria.

Yesterday's Washington Post lead story, sourced to unnamed U.S. officials, reported that Obama is considering Pentagon proposals to "put U.S. troops closer to front lines" in Iraq and Syria.

Diplomats at our embassy in Washington note that this kind of story often reflects decisions already made and about to be formally announced. In this particular case, however, the embassy thinks it at least equally likely that the Post is being used by officials who favor more aggressive military action, in order to put pressure on the President. During Obama's first year in office, senior military leaders used the media to make it extremely difficult for Obama to turn down leaked Pentagon proposals to "surge" troops into Afghanistan.

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain, the Republican chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, used a Senate hearing to ridicule administration policy on Syria and grill Defense Secretary Ashton Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Joseph Dunford on the policy's embarrassing failings. Carter said attacks against ISIL in Syria and Iraq would increase, including "direct action on the ground." But Dunford admitted, "The balance of forces now are in Assad's advantage."

Facing heavy criticism for indecisiveness, Obama still seems reluctant to put many more U.S. Army or "moderate rebel" boots into the "quagmire" that he warned us against when we began our airstrikes. He would also wish to avoid the kind of destructive attacks that would pour still more Syrian refugees into Europe.

We do not think occasional "direct action on the ground" will change much. Indeed, a White House spokesman reiterated yesterday that the administration has "no intention of long-term ground combat."

As for the "no-fly zone" advocated by McCain and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, Secretary Carter said, "We have not made that recommendation to the President," adding the obligatory caveat, "He hasn't taken it off the table." Dunford added, "From a military perspective, we can impose a no-fly zone."

Diplomacy

We continue to believe that Obama prefers to regard this past month's events in Syria as an opportunity to bring the main players to the negotiating table rather than the battlefield.

Defense Secretary Carter called attention to talks later this week in Vienna, in which Secretary of State John Kerry will be engaged, that are "precisely aimed at the contours of [a] political settlement." The big news here is that Kerry has dropped the U.S. objection to having Iran, a supporter of the Assad regime, participate.

As for Kerry, unlike his behavior in late summer 2013 and in early 2014, he seems to be following the President's instructions to negotiate an end to the conflict and to the misery in Syria.

Emerging on Friday from contentious talks with the Saudi and Turkish foreign ministers, as well as Foreign Minister Lavrov, Kerry sounded a hopeful note: "Diplomacy has a way of working through very difficult issues that seem to be absolutely contradictory … but if we can get into a political process, then sometimes these things have a way of resolving themselves."

At the Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Carter called for an early political transition in Syria, but was careful to add, "The structures of the Syrian state are going to be important to the future, and we don't want them to dissolve entirely. … The U.S. approach to removing Assad has been mostly a political effort."

At which point, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, a close ally of Sen. McCain, complained bitterly, "Assad is as secure as the day is long," adding, "you have turned Syria over to Russia and Iran."

The vitriol of McCain and Graham is no surprise. We want to make sure you know something about a relatively new player, JCS Chairman Joseph Dunford, who chose at his confirmation hearing on July 9, 2015, to let the world know that he is an unreconstructed Cold Warrior:

"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States, I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said. "If you look at their behavior, it's nothing short of alarming." Dunford added that he thought it reasonable to send heavy weapons to Ukraine.

Dunford took up his new duties at an inauspicious moment – the day after we began launching air strikes against terrorist targets in Syria. Suffice it to say that, for the U.S. military and CIA, October has been one of the most humiliating months since the inglorious U.S. departure from Vietnam. It is important to bear that in mind.

We think this serves to double the pressure on President Obama to let loose the military on Syria and Iraq, as pushed by most of the corporate media that are attacking Obama for weakness and indecision. You will recall that he faced the same challenge in August 2013, when he came very close to letting himself be mouse-trapped into a major attack on Syria with U.S. forces.

A Special Danger

This time there is a new, quite delicate element of which you need to be aware – the so-called "moderate" rebels whom the U.S. (primarily the CIA) trained, equipped, and inserted into Syria.  This issue came up at the Senate Armed Services Committee meeting yesterday, when Chairman McCain expressed particular concern for pro-U.S. Syrian rebels he said are now being bombed by Russia and Syria.

Defense Secretary Carter replied that "no rebel group directly supported by the Defense Department under the law had been attacked." Casting a look of incredulity, McCain replied, "I promise you they have."

This is a particularly sore spot for McCain and his CIA friends. Ten days into our air-strike campaign, another Washington Post lead story with the headline, "Early signs of Russian intent … Strikes seemed to catch White House flat-footed," claimed that Russian aircraft "pounded" CIA-sponsored "moderate rebel groups … who appeared to get no warning that they were in Russian jets' crosshairs."

"U.S. officials" told the Post, "CIA Director John Brennan has voiced frustration with U.S. inaction as fighters trained and armed by the agency at camps in Jordan over the past two years face a Russia assault."

CIA officials do not like to be seen as leaving their own in the lurch – whether in the mountains of Syria or on the beaches of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba. Many serious scholars who have investigated the assassination of President John F. Kennedy conclude that Allen Dulles, who was fired by Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, led a cabal that killed him – and then sat on the Warren Commission to cover it all up.

We doubt that John Brennan is up to playing that kind of role, or that Dunford, for example, could be persuaded to do what a Marine predecessor, Gen. Smedley Butler, refused to do, join a coup against the sitting U.S. President (in Butler's case he rejected a right-wing scheme to remove President Franklin Roosevelt from office).But there is reason to think that Obama believes he has more to fear than the fate of his policies. One report alleges that he privately told friends of his fear of ending up like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

In sum, Obama has ample reason to be afraid that powerful people in Establishment Washington, convinced they know better than he how to protect the country, might succeed in pinning on his back a "too-soft-on-the-Russians" bulls-eye.

======

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a CIA analyst for 27 years, from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of George H. W. Bush. From 1981 to 1985, McGovern prepared thePresident's Daily Brief, which he briefed one-on-one to President Ronald Reagan's five most senior national security advisers.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43267.htm

By Rep. Ron Paul

October 29, 2015 “Information Clearing House” –  Today Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee to outline a new US military strategy for the Middle East. The Secretary admitted the failure of the US "train and equip" program for rebels in Syria, but instead of taking the appropriate lessons from that failure and get out of the "regime change" business, he announced the opposite. The US would not only escalate its "train and equip" program by removing the requirement that fighters be vetted for extremist ideology, but according to the Secretary the US military would for the first time become directly and overtly involved in combat in Syria and Iraq.

As Secretary Carter put it, the US would begin "supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS), or conducting such missions directly, whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."

"Direct action on the ground" means US boots on the ground, even though President Obama supposedly ruled out that possibility when he launched air strikes against Iraq and Syria last year. Did anyone think he would keep his word?

President Obama claims his current authority to conduct war in Iraq and Syria comes from the 2001 authorization for the use of force against those who attacked the US on 9/11, or from the 2002 authorization for the use of force against Saddam Hussein. Neither of these claims makes any sense. The 2002 authorization said nothing about ISIS because at the time there was no ISIS, and likewise the 2001 authorization pertained to an al-Qaeda that did not exist in Iraq or Syria at the time.

Additionally, the president's year-long bombing campaign against Syrian territory is a violation of that country's sovereignty and is illegal according to international law.

Congress is not even consulted these days when the president decides to start another war or to send US ground troops into an air war that is not going as planned. There might be notice given after the fact, as in Secretary Carter's testimony today, but the president has (correctly) concluded that Congress has allowed itself to become completely irrelevant when it comes to such grave matters as war and peace.

I cannot condemn in strong enough terms this ill-advised US military escalation in the Middle East. Whoever concluded that it is a good idea to send US troops into an area already being bombed by Russian military forces should really be relieved of duty.

The fact is, the neocons who run US foreign policy are so determined to pull off their regime change in Syria that they will risk the lives of untold US soldiers and even risk a major war in the region — or even beyond – to escalate a failed policy. Russian strikes against ISIS and al-Qaeda must be resisted, they claim, because they are seen as helping the Assad government remain in power, and the US administration is determined that "Assad must go."

This is not our war. US interventionism has already done enough damage in Iraq and Syria, not to mention Libya. It is time to come home. It is time for the American people to rise up and demand that the Obama Administration bring our military home from this increasingly dangerous no-win confrontation. We must speak out now, before it is too late!

http://ronpaulinstitute.org

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43276.htm

Source: Pravda.Ru photo archive

The supposedly secret visit of Syrian President Bashar Assad to Moscow is still widely covered in Western media. Member of the Central Council of the National Union of Syrian Students, Naovaf Ibrahim, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Society for Solidarity with People of Libya and Syria, the leader of the anti-globalization movement of Russia, Alexander Ionov, discussed Assad’s visit to Russia and the future of Russian-Syrian relations with Pravda.Ru.

“Now that Bashar Assad paid a visit to Russia, does it mean that the people of Syria are starting to win?”

Naovaf Ibrahim: “The visit of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Russia was indeed indicative. He is the person who has been standing strong for five years. He came to Russia upon the invitation from Russian President Putin, and everything was organized very well.

“This proves that secret services of Russia and Syria work well. They knew how to come to Russia without any incidents. The Americans claim that they can control everything and never miss a fly, but they could not make Assad stay in Syria. He flew to Russia and back and everything went well.

“It is very important that he was able to leave his country that has been at war for five years. No other president could ever leave his country in case of war. The Syrian president left the keys to his country in the hands of Syrian soldiers, the people of Syria and his allies. He quietly came here to Russia for discussions.

“President Putin and Russia in general have won a lot of respect and trust among  the peoples of the Middle East. You should have seen the welcome that the people of Egypt gave Putin when he visited the country. The Syrian people celebrated Sergey Lavrov’s arrival in Syria in the beginning of the crisis. Millions of people took to the streets.

“Putin has demonstrated that Bashar al-Assad is the legitimate president of the UN-recognized country. Putin has demonstrated that to the whole world, especially to Western countries that have been supplying the region with terrorists only for five years already.

“Which countries can address Syrian issues? It is only the people and the army of Syria that can do it. This is was President Bashar al-Assad clearly said. He said that there would be no future, no peace and no stability in the country, if no political decisions are made for that.”

“Turkey has played a very strong destructive role for the bloodshed in Syria. Can Turkey change its position as a result of elections?”

Alexander Ionov: “Hard to say. The Western press has been propagandizing the opinion of the Western world on many issues, including the Turkish one. Generally, this is a one-sided, diffuse and primitive position.

“In Yemen, Syria, and Iraq no military success has been achieved. Turkey was dealing with the Kurds, the Americans were dealing with Iraq. Ever since the beginning of the crisis, Turkey was supporting the so-called Free Syrian Army that eventually became part of the Islamic State and currently represents Wahhabi and international terrorists acting on the territory of two states. Turkey made it possible to open the 900-kilometer border with Syria for terrorists and weapons to go through. Turkish experts were even training terrorists. Turkish President Erdogan created the so-called Kurdish Party that took a fairly good number of seats in the parliament. Yet, no one is happy with this, the Kurds are disappointed in Erdogan as well. The Turks and the Kurds are fighting in Syria – they are not struggling against ISIS. Turkey supported Khattab and other terrorists, and now, unfortunately, the country continues its revenge against the Syrian people.”

“Does it make any sense at all to hold the international conference in Geneva?”

“The only hope is Russia. From the very beginning of the crisis, Russia has always given a platform and said solving the Syrian crisis was possible only through political means. The West did not let it happen, as the West had other interests. First, it was the gas pipeline to Europe, the US and its allies wanted to crush Russia, but failed. Western countries and Gulf monarchies are funding this terror around the world with Saudi Arabia being the first in the chain.

“What is the point of the Geneva conference when Western countries keep saying for several years: “We want to save the Syrian people.” From whom do they want to save the Syrian people? From Syrian people? Syria has never had either internal problems or civil wars. We have always lived in peace and harmony – Christians, Muslims and members of all faiths. The West interfered in the internal affairs of another country and wanted to decide the fate of the people. Nobody gave the West the right to act so.”

Interview conducted by Said Gafurov

Pravda.Ru 

Read article on the Russian version of Pravda.Ru

http://english.pravda.ru/world/asia/29-10-2015/132453-west_syria_russia-0/