>> you talked about these strikes as hopefully having an effect. i wonder if you could assess a little bit, obviously, the iraq end of this campaign has been going on for a while. do you think you had an effect so far with those strikes, and what more is going, is hoped for from this wave?
>> the most important thing is to create some space for the iraqi security forces to reorganize and replace leadership that needs to be replaced, to allow them to reorganize their equipment and rearm, to get their ministry connected to this newly-formed government and to allow them to get on the offensive. what we have been doing over these last couple of weeks and what last night's campaign was about was simply buying them some space so that they can get on the offensive.
>> general, you talked about the overall plan along the iraqis, peshmerga to go on the offensive, won't these strikes in syria benefit assad? you're hitting the corazon group, the isis, this benefits him, doesn't it?
>> right now the task at hand is countering isil, that's job one. as you mentioned last night, we not only were doing strikes this syria, we did several strikes this support of peshmerga forces in iraq. but the principal focus right now is countering the threat to isil first to iraq, then to the region.
>> but as a result of that, it's benefiting assad, isn't it?
>> i wouldn't characterize the effects we had last night as benefiting assad. it's certainly causing isil to address the fact that there now is an air war against them.
>> You said the Syrians were informed through the UN that this was going to happen. We've heard a lot about their air defense system being very robust. Were any of your aircraft painted with radar coming in? Was the radar turned off?
-- >> Yeah. The target acquisition last night, radar acquisition i would characterize as passive.
>> They turned it off or what?
>> I won't get into specifically what we know they did, but i think it's fair to say to assess last night it was a passive radar.
Ellsberg works for Kissinger.
"A. Well, that was my war. That makes me pretty old. And at 83, I am. This means I know what Vietnam means as well as Iraq, unlike most members of Congress. The New York Times noted on Sept. 18 that only a third of those voting on authorizing American advisers, arms and trainers for Syrian rebels were in Congress the last time there was a vote on war, which was for Iraq, in 2002. "
This simply is not true. There was a vote last year on a war with Syria, and the Congress (this SAME Congress) said "No".
The Warmongers and the Zionists are absolutely furious with Obama over this - hence the Wave of Assassins at the White House.
"We are a wave of assassins throughout the world.''
Edward M. Richardson,
Letter to Jodie Foster,
Watch the Pentagon briefings - they are furious. The Navy spokesperson denied that the attacks into Syria were done in cooperation with Assad or would help the Syrian government, but he did confirm that the Syrians were advised via their UN mission that the strikes would be going in, and where they would be hitting.
So the Pentagon NeoCon Warmongers (along with the foundation funded Left Warmongers) are just flat out lying - the Pentagon spokesman confirmed that the Syrian Integrated Air Defence Net, which is one of the most efficient and sophisticated in the world (as US Navy aviators learned in 1983) was turned OFF to allow the US Strikes in.
Obama is working with Assad - this is proper, credible anti-terrorism measures of the kind the US has not practiced outside of the drone program since at least August of 1998, when Clinton ALMOST succeeded in killing Bin Laden (in spite of Madeline Albright and William Cohen's active sabotage of the Tomahawk strike (by warning the Pakistani ISI, who in turn warned Bin Laden, who moved)).
Let's see what CodePink have to say about this....
Given that they were silent for nearly 2 years over the Death Squads in Syria, and were (rightly) denied entry into Egypt after Tahir as foreign agents provocateurs.
Medea Benjamin: "We [also] heard a lot of people [in Afghanistan] say they didn't want more troops to be sent in and they wanted the U.S. to have a responsible exit strategy that included the training of Afghan troops, included being part of promoting a real reconciliation process and included economic development; that the United States shouldn't be allowed to just walk away from the problem. So that's really our position."
Foundation Cash Funds Antiwar Movement
By: Julia Duin
Washington Times | Thursday, April 03, 2003
The American antiwar movement is decked out with all the elements of the counterculture, but it is getting some very establishment funding.
In a few months, foundations and donors have kicked in millions of dollars to help antiwar groups stage demonstrations, take out expensive newspaper and TV ads, maintain Web sites, hire and pay staff, and lease office space in high-rent New York, Washington and San Francisco locales.
Most work under the umbrella of sympathetic "fiscal sponsors," groups with tax-exempt status that have also lent out staff and office space. For instance, Code Pink Women for Peace, a feminist movement known for its pink clothing and awarding of "pink slips," or pink lingerie, to legislators they deem pro-war, operates under the aegis of Global Exchange, a San Francisco organization with a $4.2 million budget.
Code Pink co-founder Medea Benjamin, a director for Global Exchange, says they are paying a bargain $400 a month for a cubicle office at 15th and H streets in the District. More space for Code Pink is on loan from two organizations down the hall, the National Organization for Women and the Institute for Policy Studies.
Code Pink has raised $70,000 to $80,000 in its four-month existence, mostly through its www.codepinkalert.org site and sales of Code Pink buttons and T-shirts, "which we can't keep in stock," she adds.
The Institute for Policy Studies, a left-wing think tank, has released a drumbeat of antiwar essays in recent months. The institute has a $2.2 million budget for 2003 provided by the Turner, Ford, MacArthur and Charles Stewart Mott foundations, among others.
The brunt of the peace funding, says institute director John Cavannagh, is being done by smaller foundations able to quickly shift funds from other programs.
"Individual peace groups have all gone out and raised funds," he says. "It's a lot of money, but I don't know how much. There's a pooling of resources between peace groups I've not seen before, which explains the large numbers of demonstrations and peace marches created."
For instance, the institute's 2002 foreign policy budget of $400,000, which includes antiwar activism, received $50,000 from the HKH Foundation, $50,000 from the Arca Foundation, $20,000 from the Samuel Rubin Foundation, $15,000 from the Solidago Foundation and $50,000 from the MacArthur Foundation.
"These are warnings..."
18 U.S. Code § 871 - Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
(b) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice President-elect” as used in this section shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the offices of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained from the results of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2. The phrase “other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President” as used in this section shall mean the person next in the order of succession to act as President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 19 and 20.