by Jon Rappoport
September 5, 2013
"Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Fla., who is aggressively lobbying against a military strike on Syria, says the Obama administration has manipulated intelligence to push its case for U.S. involvement in the country's two-year civil war...He says members of Congress are being given intelligence briefings without any evidence to support administration claims that Syrian leader Bashar Assad ordered the use of chemical weapons. Grayson said he cannot discuss the classified briefings..." (US News,9/6/13)
HE SAYS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE BEING GIVEN INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ADMINISTRATION CLAIMS THAT SYRIAN LEADER BASHAR ASSAD ORDERED THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS.
So what do they do in these secret briefings? Show Congressmen a classified CIA handshake? Kill a pig? Hand out stacks of cash?
Here's the thing, and remember it. Obama invited us all to the party. He said we had to take responsibility for going to war or not going to war.
He said we were involved. The American people.
And since that's the case, we have to see the evidence. Not just the report to the President. Not just the summary by the CIA. Not just the statement of Mr. Kerry-Heinz. Not just McCain looking up from his video poker game to remind us that we have to go to war to avoid undermining the credibility of the United States.
Evidence is in the details. Put it all on the table. Now. Open it up. Open up the folders and the files and the statements.
Otherwise, how can we make up our minds? We're not going on faith. We've had enough of that.
If you think relying on members of Congress, who've had secret briefings behind closed doors, is adequate, you're quite insane.
Obama says he's certain Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. That's where we start. Prove it. Do you know what "prove" means? It means PROVE.
Here's a novel idea. In these hearings that are taking place now, call to the stand 30 or 40 members of Congress who've had the confidential briefings and ask them: what in particular convinced you that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people?
And accept NO generalities. Grill these Congressmen, press them, get down their necks, corner these weasels. Make them make their case.
"Oh, sir, you mean you saw photos of dead people? Is that it? You've got nothing else?"
"Sir, let's cut the crap. You're basically telling this committee that you know Assad used chemical weapons on his own people because the CIA told you so. Right? When you boil it down, that's what you're saying. My ten-year-old daughter could do better than that."
Evidence, when you get past the propaganda line, is a strange thing. You know why? Because it's EVIDENCE. That's right. It stands there and says, "Hey, look at me, I'm evidence. What do you think? Do I make sense?"
It can be questioned. It can be analyzed. People can chop away at it and defend it and turn it over in their hands and see it from several sides. Each piece of it.
The federal government has certain departments that look at evidence and interpret it. And then they release conclusions. That's all these people do. And we're supposed to bow down and say, "Well, those are the people who deal with evidence. We the people have nothing to do with that."
It's hypnotism. We're supposed to accept that the government has people who handle evidence and we're too stupid to take on the job ourselves. That's the trance.
And it's a crock.
"We, the CIA, and allied intelligence agencies, declare that we OWN the area of discovering vital and secret information and then interpreting it. We don't just DO it. We're exclusively IN CHARGE of it. Every activity in society has a function and that function is delegated to some government department. You, the people, aren't in charge of anything..."
The government doesn't want us to look at evidence because it knows we'll ask questions and pry and poke and analyze it with more care and more righteous suspicion than they do. Minus the official agenda.
There was a self-appointed citizen grand jury who did just that in the case of the Oklahoma City bombing. It was headed up by Charles Key. These people made the hypnotized official Grand Jury directed by official prosecutors look like idiots. What Charles Key's group discovered would fry your brain. Because they actually looked at the evidence and punched holes in it and found new and better evidence, and they didn't stop until it was obvious that the whole OKC bombing was a very different kind of op.
So, in this situation, the war in Syria, we're invited to the party, but not really. They don't want us to see the evidence because they know what we'd do to it.
"Mr. Obama? You want us to bear the burden of responsibility for bombing Syria? You said that. All right, then we have to look at the evidence for ourselves. You see, that's what responsibility entails. If, on the other hand, that invitation to the party was just a straight con, and meant nothing, then okay. At least we know where we stand. But don't issue the invitation then. We don't need it and we don't want it. Also, just out of curiosity, is John Kerry alive? He looks like a corpse who's been re-animated in a castle in Transylvania. Just asking."
And now, here's Putin. His boys have put together a 100-page report showing it's the rebels who used chem weapons in Syria. They sent the report to the UN. Let's see it. The whole thing. Open it up. Put it side by side with the US intell assessment and compare and contrast.
Somebody is going to say, "This is ridiculous. The government can't expose everything they know, because it would 'compromise methods and sources' and it could get agents and assets killed."
Right. They always trot that one out. It ends all arguments.
"Okay, wow, I see. Yes. In that case, just keep all your secrets and tell us what to do and we'll do it. Tell us what to go along with and we will. We're the peons and you're the pros."
Here's my response to that. One, the government frequently uses the excuse to hide information that wouldn't get anyone killed but would expose government crimes to the people.
And two, needless and criminal wars also get people killed, and if government has the exclusive right to decide when to make war, we're living in a fascist State. Why? Because those decisions are often made on the basis of issues miles removed from defending America.
The invitation to the American people to participate in deciding whether to attack Syria? It's like sitting on a jury in a murder case and having the judge tell you you can't hear or see the evidence. You're only going to hear witnesses spout generalities about whether they believe the defendant is innocent or guilty.
Welcome to the charade, the con, the big lie, the imitation of reality.