Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by VimanaExplorer
That tells me Syria knows the proof is there they did it but now saying my troops did not get the orders from me. Try to prove it. It is his army.edit on 6-9-2013 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)
Sinan Ulgen, chairman of the Center for Economics and Foreign Policy Studies, a think tank in Istanbul, said the development was not unexpected. "Erdogan made his choice long ago, placing Turkey in the vanguard of countries calling for regime change in Syria," Mr Ulgen said yesterday. "That choice comes with a number of risks."
Originally posted by elouina
reply to post by VimanaExplorer
Exactly! According to the article I linked to up a few posts (somewhere above the trolling), the communications that were intercepted show that they were surprised by the chemical attack.
Check this post out right here.
reply to Click here for contents of communications intercepted
On Syria, "Trust, but Verify"
This op-ed written by Congressman Alan Grayson appeared in The New York Times today. Read it, share it with your friends and family, and join more than 75,000 others who oppose U.S. military intervention in Syria by signing on at DontAttackSyria.com.
WASHINGTON - THE documentary record regarding an attack on Syria consists of just two papers: a four-page unclassified summary and a 12-page classified summary. The first enumerates only the evidence in favor of an attack. I'm not allowed to tell you what's in the classified summary, but you can draw your own conclusion.
On Thursday I asked the House Intelligence Committee staff whether there was any other documentation available, classified or unclassified. Their answer was "no."
The Syria chemical weapons summaries are based on several hundred underlying elements of intelligence information. The unclassified summary cites intercepted telephone calls, "social media" postings and the like, but not one of these is actually quoted or attached - not even clips from YouTube. (As to whether the classified summary is the same, I couldn't possibly comment, but again, draw your own conclusion.)
Over the last week the administration has run a full-court press on Capitol Hill, lobbying members from both parties in both houses to vote in support of its plan to attack Syria. And yet we members are supposed to accept, without question, that the proponents of a strike on Syria have accurately depicted the underlying evidence, even though the proponents refuse to show any of it to us or to the American public.
In fact, even gaining access to just the classified summary involves a series of unreasonably high hurdles.
We have to descend into the bowels of the Capitol Visitors Center, to a room four levels underground. Per the instructions of the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, note-taking is not allowed.
Once we leave, we are not permitted to discuss the classified summary with the public, the media, our constituents or even other members. Nor are we allowed to do anything to verify the validity of the information that has been provided.
And this is just the classified summary. It is my understanding that the House Intelligence Committee made a formal request for the underlying intelligence reports several days ago. I haven't heard an answer yet. And frankly, I don't expect one.
Compare this lack of transparency with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi attack. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, to her credit, made every single relevant classified e-mail, cable and intelligence report available to every member of Congress. (I know this, because I read them all.) Secretary Clinton had nothing to hide.
Her successor, John Kerry, has said repeatedly that this administration isn't trying to manipulate the intelligence reports the way that the Bush administration did to rationalize its invasion of Iraq.
But by refusing to disclose the underlying data even to members of Congress, the administration is making it impossible for anyone to judge, independently, whether that statement is correct. Perhaps the edict of an earlier administration applies: "Trust, but verify."
The danger of the administration's approach was illustrated by a widely read report last week in The Daily Caller, which claimed that the Obama administration had selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes in Syria, with one report "doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report."
The allegedly doctored report attributes the attack to the Syrian general staff. But according to The Daily Caller, "it was clear that 'the Syrian general staff were out of their minds with panic that an unauthorized strike had been launched by the 155th Brigade in express defiance of their instructions.'"
I don't know who is right, the administration or The Daily Caller. But for me to make the correct decision on whether to allow an attack, I need to know. And so does the American public.
We have reached the point where the classified information system prevents even trusted members of Congress, who have security clearances, from learning essential facts, and then inhibits them from discussing and debating what they do know. And this extends to matters of war and peace, money and blood. The "security state" is drowning in its own phlegm.
My position is simple: if the administration wants me to vote for war, on this occasion or on any other, then I need to know all the facts. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.
Alan Grayson, a Democratic representative from Florida, is a member of the House committee.
Originally posted by wrabbit2000
......oh... wait... it's not Bush anymore ...is it? uhhh.... WTF?! Two Presidents dance the very same jig? Hey....Something ain't right here!
Originally posted by MDDoxs
reply to post by elouina
Well didn't Hagel look like a deer caught in the headlights when he was asked that question at the 3:45 mark of the video.
I am so glad to see that some politicians, whether for moral motivations or not, are trying to expose or clarify this supposed evidence.
Or is the truth Classified, classified and more classified ???edit on 6-9-2013 by MDDoxs because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by elouina
Is nothing new, Bush did the same to be able to get into Iraq, what it surprises me the most is how Bush got away with it, but Obama own people are turning against him.
I can debate as why but it will just be a conspiracy until proved different.
But this something that we have debate here, Obama is doing what he is told to do, he is told to push for war by the warmongers profiteers and that is what he is doing, just following the masters.
Still his own people turning around on him is something very interesting and surprising.
edit on 6-9-2013 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)
Congressman Justin Amash said last week:
What I heard in Obama admn briefing actually makes me more skeptical of certain significant aspects of Pres’s case for attacking
He noted yesterday, after attending another classified briefing and reviewing more classified materials:
Attended another classified briefing on #Syria & reviewed add’l materials. Now more skeptical than ever. Can’t believe Pres is pushing war.
Congressman Tom Harkin said:
I have just attended a classified Congressional briefing on Syria that quite frankly raised more questions than it answered. I found the evidence presented by Administration officials to be circumstantial.
Congressman Michael Burgess said:
Yes, I saw the classified documents. They were pretty thin.
Yahoo News reports:
New Hampshire Democratic Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, for instance, left Thursday’s classified hearing and said she was opposed to the effort “now so more than ever.”
“I think there’s a long way to go for the president to make the case,” she said after the briefing. “It does seem there is a high degree of concern and leaning no.”
Senator Joe Manchin announced he was voting “no” for a Syria strike right after hearing a classified intelligence brieifng.