Syria

Arab press pans President Obama on Syria

If President Barack Obama isn’t happy with his press coverage in the United States, he ought to take a look at how he’s being portrayed in the Arab media.

Politico,

7 September, 2013

As Obama steps up his push for congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, the president is coming under withering criticism by opinion leaders throughout the Middle East, according to a review by POLITICO and experts of Arabic- and English-language media in the region.

The Obama bashing can be categorized in several ways: Those who charge the president’s needlessly dragging his feet; conspiracy theorists who argue it’s all a plot to boost Israel; and others who claim that any military operation in Syria is motivated only by the U.S.’s interest in dominating the region.

The increasingly unfavorable coverage Obama’s receiving in the Arab world - even come from the press in countries that support U.S. intervention in Syria - is doing harm to his image and influence, as well as further diminishing how America is perceived in the region, experts say. It hits especially hard coming at a time when Obama is looking anywhere he can, at home and abroad, to find allies for his plan to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“There are (Arab) media who say the U.S. should do something and basically Obama is being a chicken shit about it,” said Lawrence Pintak, a former Middle East correspondent for CBS News and founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. “The main talking point is that al-Assad needs to be stopped, this is a humanitarian crisis the U.S. needs to move. The second set is that Obama is showing a level of cowardice in turning to Congress for political cover, that it undermines American effectiveness.”

In an open letter on Sept. 1 to Obama published on Al Arabiya, based in Dubai and considered one of the top Arab news outlets, popular columnist Nasser al-Sarami said a military strike is “the last chance” that Obama has to improve his image and credibility. “Strike at all the jihadi terrorist gatherings and the murderous regime…Mr. Obama, quite frankly, we do not have anyone other than you,” al-Sarami wrote, according to a translation by Voice of America.

Arab media experts said news outlets in Saudi Arabia have led the charge on calling on Obama to act, and Al Arabiya is considered to mostly align with the Saudi perspective.

In a sharply critical piece, Tariq Al-Homayed wrote recently in the London-based newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat that “it is not surprising that Assad continues to commit his crimes against Syria and the Syrians, for Assad’s strength stems from Obama’s weakness,” according to a translation by the Middle East Media Research Institute.

Michael Young, the opinion editor of the moderate English-language Lebanese newspaper the Daily Star, offered his view that Obama’s legacy is at risk as Syrians are “killed in droves.”

“America has rarely seemed so indolent in the face of barbarism,” Young said in the Aug. 23 piece. “Is Assad right in expecting no better than empty posturing from Washington? Or will the most overrated of American presidents be shamed into action, if only to salvage his collapsing reputation?”

While the White House and the America media are focusing on Obama’s “red line” against the use of chemical weapons as a justification for military action, the Arab media has shown little interest in that rationale as a basis for the attack. For them, a line was crossed long ago with the killing of large numbers of civilians by conventional means, Arab media experts said.

“Obama sat in his oval office for two and a half years, counting the tens of thousands of Syrian victims,” wrote Elias Harfoush in the pan-Arab and generally pro-Western Al-Hayat, which is based in London, according to a translation by The Times of Israel on Sept. 1. “What has the US president done in this period? Nothing! Until last August with a slip of the tongue he made the ‘mistake’ of warning Bashar Assad against crossing the ‘red line’ of using chemical weapons against his people.”

One of the main concerns of the Arab media is trying to define why Obama has delayed action, Joe Khalil, a professor at Northwestern University in Qatar, told POLITICO. “Defining (Obama’s) reluctance has been one of the main obsessions of the Arab media, asking why isn’t he more assertive in his decision, after all, he said he said he’s not going to allow cross the red line,” Khalil said.

While there are those in the Arab media boiling over because they want Obama to move against Syria and don’t understand what’s stalling him, there are others who see Israel - the old Middle East “boogeyman” as one expert put - as pulling the strings behind the scenes.

“I would say an overwhelmingly majority [of Arab columnists] are headed in that direction, that [the U.S. is] trying to serve its own interest and serve Israeli interest through this planned attack,” said Professor Mohammed el-Nawawy of Queens University of Charlotte, N.C., the author of several books on the Arab media. “I don’t recall seeing any commentary that the U.S. is doing this for humanitarian reasons. So I think this expected strike would actually contribute to the further deterioration of the U.S. image in the Arab world.”

Al Hayat columnist Jihad el-Khazen wrote on Wednesday that he believes it is the Jewish state calling the shots on a potential strike.

“What I do know is that all the warmongers are neocons or American Likudniks whose sole allegiance is to Israel, where the prevailing view is that a delay in striking Syria would be interpreted as weakness in the U.S. position,” el-Khazen wrote. “Israeli is a harlot-like occupation state that is not unlike the harlots of the Torah, and its government, which includes war criminals in its ranks, wants the United States to destroy what is left of Syria. More importantly, Israel wants the U.S. to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear program, so that Israel can be the only nuclear power in the region, threatening nearby and faraway countries.”

The pivot toward the Arab media’s blaming Israel is not a surprise, said Rami Khouri, Director of the Issam Fares Institute of Public Policy and International Affairs at The American University of Beirut. “There’s a reflexive reaction for many people in the Arab world to an American attack on the Arab world,” Khouri told POLITICO. “They are often linked to these other issues they have suffered, that (America) is seen as wanting to keep Israel the strongest part of the region.”

Pintak called Israel the “ever present boogeyman” in the Arab media. He said that some media figures who are advocating for military intervention have begun to suggest that “it was the Israelis who strong-armed Obama into postponing the action” - an odd claim when Israel has publicly supported a limited strike.

Then there are those in the Arab media who say an attack on Syria goes beyond Israeli interests and is part of a larger American goal to restore Western dominance in the Middle East.

In an opinion piece for the Dubai-based English-language newspaper Khaleej Times, Eric S. Margolis wrote on Sunday, “The Syrian conflict is a proxy war being waged against Iran by the United States, conservative Arab oil producers, and three former Mideast colonial powers, Britain, France and Turkey who are seeking to restore their domination in the region.”

Given all this, the U.S. will find the public relations battle more difficult than the military one as the conflict unfolds, el-Nawawy said.

“If the United States proceeds with the strike I think it will be faced with the situation where it will have to fight an uphill battle to try to restore its image that has been tarnished since the Iraq war,” el-Nawawy said. “The U.S. has been trying to fix, work on the damage that has affected its image because of the Iraq war, and I think (a strike) would be a big blow to these efforts.”

Obama's Missing Link: No Direct Connection Between Assad And Gas Attack

Zero Hedge,

7 September, 2013

While one can speculate if the sarin gas attack on August 22 was ordered and orchestrated by Saudi/Qatari petrodollar interests, with the assistance of the CIA and the funding of al Qaeda, and executed by the Syrian "rebels" (there is much circumstantial evidence pointing in the false flag direction: here, here, here and here), the reality is that since the narrative behind Obama's offensive Syrian air strikes has been staged as punishment for Assad, the onus is on the affirmative proof, namely clear and unequivocal evidence that it was Assad who ordered the attack. So far, despite repeated vows and promises that such proof exists, none has been presented, aside from numerous YouTube clips which show an attack did take place (and even that is in question). When it comes to the actual perpetrator, John Kerry and company are reduced to emotional pleadings to the audience to look at pictures of dead children redirecting from the most important question of all: did Assad actually do it. The reason for such Copperfieldian tactics is that there simply is no link - Reuters reports that  "No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward." And yet Obama's entire publicly stated motive is to punish Assad... for something there is zero evidence he did.

The excerpt below from Reuters is how far the mainstream media will go of accusing Obama of conducting a false flag without actually "accusing" him.

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.

It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.

After wrongly claiming that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction before the 2003 U.S. invasion, the U.S. intelligence community, along with the Obama administration, are trying to build as solid a case as they can about what it says was a sarin nerve gas attack that killed over 1,400 people.

The Syrian government, backed by Russia, blames Sunni rebels for the gas attack. Russia says Washington has not provided convincing proof that Assad's troops carried out the attack and called it a "provocation" by rebel forces hoping to encourage a military response by the United States.

Identifying Syrian commanders or leaders as those who gave an order to fire rockets into the Sunni Muslim areas could help Obama convince a war-weary American public and skeptical members of Congress to back limited strikes against Assad.

But penetrating the secretive Syrian government is tough, especially as it fights a chaotic civil war for its survival.

But isn't that what the NSA is for: after all Obama had an extended tangent during his G-20 press conference explaining precisely that the role of the NSA is to keep America breast on non-public developments. And the whole "access to everything" should mean not a single Syrian communication was left unintercepted. Or maybe, just maybe, the NSA was meant solely to spy on America's citizens, while ignoring what happens in Damascus, instead forcing the administration to come up with made up stories?

One possible link between the gas attack and Assad's inner circle is the Syrian government body that is responsible for producing chemical weapons, U.S. and allied security sources say.

Personnel associated with the Syrian Scientific Studies and Research Council (SSRC), which has direct ties to Assad's entourage, were likely involved in preparing munitions in the days before the attack, they say.

A declassified French intelligence report describes a unit of the SSRC, known by the code name "Branch 450", which it says is in charge of filling rockets or shells with chemical munitions in general.

U.S. and European security sources say this unit was likely involved in mixing chemicals for the August 21 attack and also may have played a more extensive role in preparing for it and carrying it out.

Bruce Riedel, a former senior U.S. intelligence expert on the region and sometime advisor to the Obama White House, said that intelligence about the SSRC's alleged role is the most telling proof the United States has at hand.

"The best evidence linking the regime to the attack at a high level is the involvement of SSRC, the science center that created the (chemical weapons) program and manages it. SSRC works for the President's office and reports to him," Riedel said.

U.S. officials say Amr Armanazi, a Syrian official identified as SSRC director in a State Department sanctions order a year ago, was not directly involved.

Ironically, the early definitive proof that was going to be the nail in Assad's coffin so to speak, has all been rejected now:

As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.

Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.

So what if any evidence is there, aside from YouTube clips of course?

Much of the U.S. claim that Assad is responsible was initially based on reports from witnesses, non-governmental groups and hours of YouTube videos.

U.S. officials have not presented any evidence to the public of scientific samples or intelligence information proving that sarin gas was used or that the Syrian government used it.

The United States has also not named any Syrian commanders it thinks gave the green light to fire gas-laden rockets into Ghouta. But U.S. and allied security sources say they believe that Syrian military units responsible for the areas that were attacked were under heavy pressure from top commanders to wipe out a stubborn rebel presence there so government troops could redeploy to other trouble spots, including the city of Aleppo.

An analysis by the Congressional Research Service, a branch of the Library of Congress, reported that a declassified U.S. government paper summarizing intelligence findings concludes that Syrian government officials were "witting and directed" the gas attack. But the evidence of who ordered it was not watertight, the analysis said.

So, if one eliminates conflicted witness, one is left with ... pretty much that:

YouTube clips. Like this one prepared by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, staged from beginning to end, and designed to generate a sense of sympathy toward its cause on false grounds:

Perhaps this is why, with virtually every other avenue exhausted, Obama will be forced next week to do what he does best: speak in a charming, disarming way, and seek the teleprompter's help to sway the people to his side of the story, as unjustified as it may be:

The United Nations won't help, good pal Britain is sitting this one out, so President Barack Obama will take his case for a military attack on Syria directly to the American people next week.

Obama wrapped up his trip to the G20 summit in Russia by telling reporters he will address the nation on Tuesday as Congress prepares to vote on a resolution authorizing limited military strikes against Syria over its alleged use of chemical weapons.

Facing public opposition reflected by legislators hesitant to support him, Obama said Friday that he understands the skepticism over his call for punishing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for what U.S. officials call a sarin gas attack on August 21 that killed more than 1,400 people


"The American people have gone through a lot when it comes to the military over the last decade or so," Obama said.

Indeed, and the bulk of it has been based on false flag pretenses, just like this one.


Perhaps, for once, the American people will see right through Obama's shiny facade and pompous, if completely hollow rhetoric, and straight to the lies, and finally say no.


Unfortunately, if past is prologue, a lot of innocent Syrian civilians are about to die one way or the other, in yet another unjust war serving higher interests, and even higher money, in which the common person is merely "collateral damage."