Want to be a reporter or would you like to buy a report for the best price?
Just Sign Up here!
Privacy guidelines License our content Help
Washington and the US media seem to have no doubts about the Syrian government's complicity in the Douma incident despite the fact that those who want America to stay in Syria have far more solid motives, Ron Paul told Russia Today.
The assertion by White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders that Washington is "confident" that Syrian President Bashar Assad is culpable for the alleged chemical attack on the Damascus suburb of Douma does not stand up to scrutiny, Ron Paul, former congressman and founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, told RT.
"I don't know what they are confident about. They are confident in telling lies and hope people will believe it," he said.
Mainstream American media don't seem to need facts to back the White House's claims, either. "Most of the time when a crime is committed in this country, the stations, when they are not sure, they carefully say: 'this is allegedly' – but they never do this under these circumstances and they have zero bits of information," Paul pointed out.
While there are few questions in the US media over who is to blame for the alleged incident, the former congressman argues that Assad is the last person to suspect. "I think that least likely it would be Assad," he said, noting that the same goes for Moscow.
"I cannot see any reason why Assad would do this, there's no reason for Russians to have done that." Unlike Russia and Syria, the forces who want to see the US staying in Syria have a clear motive, Paul said.
"There are so many who want to stir up trouble, and the people who want us to stay there," he said, suggesting that Trump's recent promise to leave Syria "very soon" might have prompted war hawks to take action. "I think the policy makers here did not want us to leave and somebody does it for them," he argued, stressing that "this whole idea that, all of a sudden, Assad is gassing his own people, is a total nonsense."
Speaking about what drives the US to keep entrenching in Syria; Paul argued that the "ulterior goal" here is to contain Iran. "It's been Iran for a long time, and it has a lot to do with Saudi Arabia and Iran. I think that's the number one," he said, adding that tensions between Sunnis and Shia are part of the conflict.
"And then, there are neocons in this country who have their agenda – perpetual war for perpetual profits – and the military industry complex. And they all come together and then you throw in oil, and guess what, it's bipartisan," Paul said of internal US motives that feed into the protracted conflict in war-ravaged Syria.
Speaking about Trump's foreign-policy strategy in broad terms, Paul noted that what should be taken into account is not the US president's often self-contradictory statements, but his appointments that "got worse" with John Bolton as part of his "war cabinet."
"All of a sudden, neocons run the show. Therefore, that is what really counts. Now, John Bolton, he is really going to help us out on a sensible foreign policy!" Paul said sarcastically, recalling Bolton's hawkish record of preaching war in Iraq.
With his Sunday tweet that Bashar Assad, “Animal Assad,” ordered a gas attack on Syrian civilians, and Vladimir Putin was morally complicit in the atrocity, President Donald Trump just painted himself and us into a corner, reported LewRockwell (US) by Patrick J. Buchanan.
“Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria,” tweeted Trump, “President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price… to pay.”
“Big price… to pay,” said the president.
Now, either Trump launches an attack that could drag us deeper into a seven-year civil war from which he promised to extricate us last week, or Trump is mocked as being a man of bluster and bluff.
For Trump Sunday accused Barack Obama of being a weakling for failing to strike Syria after an earlier chemical attack.
“If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand,” Trump tweeted, “the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!”
Trump’s credibility is now on the line and he is being goaded by the war hawks to man up. Sunday, John McCain implied that Trump’s comments about leaving Syria “very soon” actually “emboldened” Assad:
“President Trump last week signaled to the world that the United States would prematurely withdraw from Syria. Bashar Assad and his Russian and Iranian backers have heard him, and emboldened by American inaction, Assad has reportedly launched another chemical attack against innocent men, women and children, this time in Douma.”
Pronouncing Assad a “war criminal,” Lindsey Graham said Sunday the entire Syrian air force should be destroyed.
So massive an attack would be an act of war against a nation that has not attacked us and does not threaten us. Hence, Congress, prior to such an attack, should pass a resolution authorizing a U.S. war on Syria.
And, as Congress does, it can debate our objectives in this new war, and how many men, casualties and years will be required to defeat the coalition of Syria, Russia, Hezbollah, Iran, and the allied Shiite militias from the Near East.
On John Bolton’s first day as national security adviser, Trump is being pushed to embrace a policy of Cold War confrontation with Russia and a U.S. war with Syria. Yet candidate Trump campaigned against both.
The War Party that was repudiated in 2016 appears to be back in the saddle. But before he makes good on that threat of a “big price… to pay,” Trump should ask his advisers what comes after the attack on Syria.
Lest we forget, there was a reason Obama did not strike Syria for a previous gas attack. Americans rose up as one and said we do not want another Middle East war.
When John Kerry went to Capitol Hill for authorization, Congress, sensing the national mood, declined to support any such attack.
Trump’s strike, a year ago, with 59 cruise missiles, on the air base that allegedly launched a sarin gas attack, was supported only because Trump was new in office and the strike was not seen as the beginning of a longer and deeper involvement in a war Americans did not want to fight.
Does Trump believe that his political base is more up for a major U.S. war in Syria today than it was then?
The folks who cheered Trump a week ago when he said we were getting out of Syria, will they cheer him if he announces that we are going deeper in?
Before any U.S. attack, Trump should make sure there is more hard evidence that Assad launched this poison gas attack than there is that Russia launched that poison gas attack in Salisbury, England.
One month after that attack, which Prime Minister Theresa May ascribed to Russia and Foreign Minister Boris Johnson laid at the feet of Putin himself, questions have arisen:
If the nerve agent used, Novichok, was of a military variety so deadly it could kill any who came near, why is no one dead from it?
Both the target, Sergei Skripal, and his daughter Yulia are recovering.
If the deadly poison was, as reported, put on the doorknob of Skripal’s home, how did he and Yulia manage to go to a restaurant after being contaminated, with neither undergoing a seizure until later on a park bench?
If Russia did it, why are the British scientists at Porton Down now admitting that they have not yet determined the source of the poison?
Why would Putin, with the prestige of hosting the World Cup in June on the line, perpetrate an atrocity that might have killed hundreds and caused nations not only to pull out of the games, but to break diplomatic relations with Russia?
U.S. foreign policy elites claim Putin wanted Trump to win the 2016 election. But if Putin indeed wanted to deal with Trump, why abort all such prospects with a poison gas murder of a has-been KGB agent in Britain, America’s foremost ally?
The sole beneficiaries of the gas attacks in Salisbury and Syria appear to be the War Party.
show source https://www.rt.com/news/423655-syria-assad-no-motive-douma-attack/