Stephen Lendman

Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller now writes Times op-eds on alternate Mondays, as well as articles for The New York Times Magazine.

Too bad his columns get failing grades. Scoundrel journalism is featured. Truth and full disclosure are excluded. His March 18 article is typical.

Headlined, "Falling In and Out of War," it began well. He admitted he's been wrong on war and wants "to avoid repeating the mistake." To his credit, he also said "it's immeasurably more true for those in a position to actually start a war."

He stopped short of explaining the vital role media scoundrels play, especially The Times as America's most influential broadsheet. It's major front page stories get global attention. As executive editor, and earlier as managing editor, he decided what got featured.

Many promoted war and support for wealth and power. Populism was excluded. So was and remains telling readers what they most need to know. Suppressing it is standard Times policy.

In his latest article, Keller wrote:

"What are the right questions the president should ask — and we as his employers should ask — when deciding whether going to war is (a) justified and (b) worth it?"

He asked five "plus two caveats, and some thoughts about how all this applies to" America's wars and prospective ones. Too bad he omitted what most need saying. More on that below.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Already embroiled in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and numerous proxy wars in Pakistan, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Sudan, central Africa, and elsewhere, evidence suggests Obama's preparing for more.

Washington-generated Syrian violence rages out of control. Efforts for nonviolent resolution are systematically subverted. Saturday's Damascus terrorist attacks and a Sunday Aleppo one reveal America's true intentions.

At least 27 Damascus lives were lost. Around 140 others were wounded, many seriously. Two deaths and about 30 injuries occurred in Aleppo, Syria's commercial hub and largest city.

On Saturday, cars packed with explosives detonated outside Syria's air security intelligence center and police headquarters. Heavy damage was caused besides the human toll.

The attacks came two, then three days after millions around the country rallied supportively for Assad on the uprising's one-year anniversary. It showed Washington won't tolerate peaceful resolution. Regime change is planned by any means, including war. Expect it.

Outrageously, major media scoundrels spuriously accused Assad of targeting his own facilities. Al Jazeera quoted opposition Syrian National Council (SNC) member Bassma Kodmani saying:

"I don't think any of the opposition forces or the Free Syrian Army has the capacity to do such an operation to target these buildings because they are fortresses. They are very well guarded. There is no way anyone can penetrate them without having strong support and complicity from inside the security apparatus."

Al Jazeera shamelessly lost all credibility. Run by Qatar's pro-western regime, propaganda replaced truth and full disclosure. It's legitimacy no longer exists. It's no different from BBC and other Western media scoundrels.

More »

Adnan Al-Daini

British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher takes the
applause during the Conservative Party Conference in
Brighton, 10th October 1980. (Getty Images)

People have woken up to the unfairness and destructiveness of uncontrolled market forces.

Why is it so difficult for politicians to change their minds? Why is a U-turn considered such a no- no for them?  Margaret Thatcher who embraced and rejoiced in the title “the iron lady”  famously remarked in 1980: “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning”; proud in her inflexibility.

I prefer our politicians to have the humility of John Maynard Keynes who said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”  Why is stubbornness and dogma so admired in a politician?  It is not a trait conducive to the common good. 

The infuriating thing is that opinion-formers, all political parties, those on the left and right of politics, view a U-turn by a politician negatively.  Changing your mind as a result of persuasive argument or a change in the evidence or circumstances is a good thing; politicians who do that should be praised, not pilloried. 

Elevating dogma above reason is not admirable in a politician or anyone else.

More »

Khalid Amayreh

Celebrating South Sudan's independence: Sudanese
refugees at a party in Tel Aviv. (Sara Miller/Haaretz)

Zionist-Jewish leaders everywhere are quite versed in the art of hypocrisy and dishonesty. Their moral inconsistency cries out to the seventh heaven.

This week, Jewish leaders in Washington , D.C. , demonstrated outside the Sudanese embassy, protesting the al-Bashir regime's excesses against rebel areas in southern Kurdufan.

The protestors accused the Sudanese government of provoking a humanitarian crisis and blocking humanitarian aid from reaching people in need.

One rabbi, wore a T-shirt saying : "Stop genocide in Darfur."

There is nothing wrong in holding protests against government repression and human rights violation anywhere in the world.

However, when championing the cause of human rights is motivated by short-sighted political expedience, highly-selective, moral confusion and moral impurity blur the picture.

I am not suggesting or demanding that at a single demonstration one would have to protest all human rights violations on earth, although this would be a good thing to do.

However, when human rights breaches and even more scandalous policies in places such as Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories are deliberately ignored, a serious question-mark is drawn over the real motives behind such demonstrations.

More »

Stephen Lendman

[The media] suppress what readers most deserve to know - the full truth about death squad killings as policy, and the many thousands of noncombatant Afghans, Iraqis, and earlier victims affected. Blaming this incident on a lone gunman suppresses the gravity of what goes on routinely and the responsibility up the chain of command to Joint Chief heads, Defense Secretary Panetta, and Obama.

In all US war theaters, troops commit unspeakable atrocities. Trained to dehumanize enemies, their mission involves killing, destruction, and much more.

Local treasures are looted. Women are raped. Civilians are treated like combatants. Children are indiscriminately harmed like adults. Prisoners are tortured. Mutilations are common. Crimes of war and against humanity are institutionalized. It's all in a day's work like taking out the garbage.

Viciousness defines US wars. No crime's too great to commit. Human lives are valueless. Only winning matters, then on to the next war. Lies, deception, unspeakable brutality, and cover-up define them.

Scoundrel media are directly complicit, including claiming one soldier murdered 16 Afgans on March 11. Credible evidence suggests up to 20 involved. Claiming a lone gunman defiles the atrocity's affect on living family members, friends, and other Afghans victimized by numerous similar incidents. More below.

More »

Erin Steuter

New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and
Prince Edward Island (1898). (From the book: History
and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which
the United States has been a Party by J. B. Moore)

The Irving Media Monopoly in New Brunswick

Living in New Brunswick where all of the English language daily papers are owned by one company means that there is very little variety in the type of news that is available to New Brunswick readers. We face classic problems of monopoly media ownership in which homogeneity and a narrow range of opinion are common features of the news media.

A corporate empire spanning oil speculation, refining and shipping, gas stations, food products, massive land holdings, forestry, pulp and paper, and employing one in eight New Brunswickers, the Irving group owns the province's three English-language daily newpspapers, as well as at least seven of twelve community weeklies.

Living in New Brunswick where all of the English language daily papers are owned by one company means that there is very little variety in the type of news that is available to New Brunswick readers. We face classic problems of monopoly media ownership in which homogeneity and a narrow range of opinion are common features of the news media.

For example: last month all three New Brunswick daily papers [1] ran editorials within several days of each other critiquing the government's appointment of unsuccessful Provincial Conservative candidates to government posts. While this editorial position may well be justified, and reflect the views of a majority of New Brunswickers, the audience nevertheless lost out on the ability to hear any another perspective on this issue. [2]

Living in New Brunswick where all of the English language daily papers are owned by a single large capitalist enterprise means that the voice of the corporate world speaks loudly and the coverage of labour focuses on confrontational and controversial events such as strikes in which labour is scapegoated. For example: this month all three papers ran editorials within several days of each other critical of the community college and prison custodians who were walking the picket line as part of a Canadian Union of Public Employees' strike. Terms such as irrational, unreasonable, ludicrous and greedy were peppered throughout the editorials revealing a pattern of Irving coverage of labour issues that typically portrays labour as the active and disruptive party. [3]

More »

Wayne Madsen

The third presidential term of Vladimir Putin will increase pressure on Russia from Western nations that have overtly and covertly sought to foment unrest throughout the Russian Federation. While such a threat is of the most immediate concern to Russia itself, another threat posed by the West will be the attempt by the West to pry more nations away from what is now considered by the military-industrial-intelligence complex in the United States and other NATO countries to be an emerging Russo-Sino bloc in Eurasia. The United States and NATO fears that such an emerging bloc will draw a line against further NATO encroachment in the Central Asian “stans,” Iran, the Indian subcontinent, and the Middle East.

The outcome of the battle for Syria between Shi’as, Alawites, Christians, Druze, and Ba’ath Socialist stalwarts on one side and NATO-, Gulf Wahhabi Sunni-, and Israeli-backed Sunni and Kurdish guerrillas on the other, will increase big power rivalry in the Middle East. The Russian naval installation at Tartus cannot be replaced given the new political geography of the region. The Turkish government of Islamist-oriented Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has given approval for NATO to build part of its missile shield on Turkish territory.

Another problem for Russia will be the Mikheil Saakashvili regime in Georgia. Saakashvili counts a number of neo-conservative war hawks, Republicans and Democrats, in the U.S. Congress as his friends. These war hawks will be clamoring for the U.S. to take a tougher approach toward the Putin presidency and they will find a willing provocateur in Saakashvili. Georgia’s influence-peddling and lobbying operations in Washington, DC, while not as strong as those of Israel, utilize some of the same political conduits and networks as the Israelis.

More »

Peter Symonds

The US and British threats are not about “democracy in Syria” or Iran’s nuclear programs but are aimed at refashioning the Middle East in line with the economic and strategic interests of the US and its allies.

US President Obama issued another menacing threat to Iran during a joint press conference at the White House with British Prime Minister David Cameron on Wednesday. He warned that the Iranian regime needed “to seize this opportunity of negotiations with the P5 plus 1 to avert even worse consequences for Iran in the future.”

Obama underlined the threat by adding: “Because the international community has applied so many sanctions, because we have employed so many of the options that are available to us to persuade Iran to take a different course, the window for solving this issue diplomatically is shrinking.”

The P5+1—the US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany—last week accepted an Iranian proposal to reopen negotiations, but no apparent agreement has been reached on the date or the terms of any discussions. Obama’s comments are clearly aimed at bullying Iran to make major concessions prior to and during any talks.

More »

Bill Van Auken

Image: Father and children killed by US Nato, Khogyani, Afghanistan, February 23, 2011 - the father was an Afghistan policeman. Nine children have been killed in a US NATO attack on their home, attacks on homes by US NATO are killing and injuring women men and children. (RAWA.org)

The political reverberations continue to grow from last Sunday’s US massacre of 16 Afghan civilians, the majority of them children, in Kandahar province. Thursday saw the Taliban breaking off talks with Washington and President Hamid Karzai demanding that US-NATO forces withdraw to their main bases. Together, these actions threaten to leave key elements of the Obama administration’s Afghanistan strategy in tatters.

Popular anger over the killings spilled into the streets again Thursday, with thousands marching in the city of Qalat in Zabul province, near Kandahar, where the massacre took place. The demonstrators carried white flags and chanted slogans against the US-led occupation and demanding that the US soldier accused of slaughtering the Afghan civilians be brought before an Afghan court for trial. Even larger demonstrations are anticipated Friday, a day that has traditionally seen Afghans stage mass protests after leaving mosques after prayers on the Muslim holy day.

The Pentagon has already quietly spirited the 38-year-old staff sergeant, who is said to have confessed to the killings, out of the country. Military sources said that he had been taken to Kuwait, on the pretext that Afghanistan lacks appropriate pre-trial detention facilities. Military officials have refused until now to release publicly the name of the accused killer.[*]

Under a status of forces agreement dictated by Washington to the regime in Kabul, US troops are given “a status equivalent to that accorded to the administrative and technical staff” of the US Embassy under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and are deemed immune from any prosecution under Afghan law. Washington is not about to waive this agreement and allow the massacre’s perpetrator to be tried anywhere outside of a US military court.

More »

Stephen Lendman

Afghanistan men inspect the damage after a NATO missile
attacked a mud-built home in Nangarhar provinced, in Kho-
gyani district in Nangarhar province on February 21, 2011.

■ US imperial wars treat civilians like combatants. To facilitate killing, soldiers are taught to dehumanize enemies, especially darker-skinned ones and Muslims. ■ Training involves instilling Groupthink hate. Individuality and free thought are erased. Recruits are intimidated to go along. When America goes to war, scoundrel journalism hardens support. ■ So do politicians, academics, religious and other leaders. They euphemize killing to justify lawlessness. At issue is conditioning public opinion to accept imperial policy like military trainers brainwash young recruits. ■ Massacring 16 Afghans, including nine children, reflects state-sponsored murder.

On March 11, eleven family members were shot at home. Their bodies were then set ablaze. Away at the time, only the father and one child survived. Multiple gunmen continued rampaging.

They killed another five civilians and wounded unknown numbers of others. Media scoundrels won't say. Neither will Pentagon commanders and political Washington.

Enraged over 10 + years of war, occupation, death squad and drone killings, appalling depravation levels, and repeated Koran desecration incidents, Afghans want those responsible punished and Americans out of their country.

On March 14, thousands rallied in Jalalabad. Displaying banners denouncing imperial occupation, they chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Obama."

Afghan senators walked out of session in protest. They began chanting anti-American slogans. Senate speaker Fazel Hadi Moslemyar said:

“We do not need foreign forces in Afghanistan. All the problems which we are facing are created by them. If they leave, the neighboring countries will leave us alone, and we can settle our country’s problems on our own.”

More »

Philip Giraldi

One of these men wants to start a war against the other one's country for reasons that can't be talked about. This man has a nuclear bomb. He may in fact have more than 300 of them. He & his friends therefore have skewed the narrative so that instead of focusing on accountability and compliance with an international inspection regime, the world talks incessantly about another country, one that is not known to possess a single nuclear weapon at all. This lunatic badly wants a war to redraw the map of the entire Middle East. He's not concerned with the human cost. He thinks he can "win" and that he can get away with it. The President and all of the politicians grovel, grovel, bow and scrape: they kowtow, crawl and lick his boots. - He's paid them well. They know what he wants. The mainstream media knows so too. They have known it for a very long time, but still they're all lying through their teeth as we slide towards yet another devastating war. - Editor

There has been considerable discussion of the meaning, or lack thereof, of the apparent difference of opinion between the United States and Israel over both the desirability and the possible timing of going to war with Iran. Those Americans who still revere the Constitution and the advice of the Founding Fathers should rightly be appalled that a war is even being considered on behalf of a small client state with which the United States has no treaty obliging such intervention.

War with Iran would undoubtedly follow the usual pattern, being authorized by the White House without the constitutionally mandated declaration of war by Congress and likely developing out of an evolving situation in which Israel is being given a free pass to initiate the conflict.

More »

Stephen Lendman

What America's Eighth Amendment and international law prohibit, US federal, state and local prisons permit.

Solitary Watch reports "news from a nation in lockdown" to bring America's widespread use of barbaric "solitary confinement and other forms of torture in U.S. prisons out of the shadows and into the light of the public square."

It calls the practice "one of the most pressing (unaddressed) domestic human rights issues in America today - and also one of the most invisible."

Many thousands are affected. More on that below. Supposedly solely for the "worst of the worst," it's used abusively as punishment without cause, despite no legitimate penological purpose.

"Today, inmates can be placed in complete isolation for months or years not only for violent acts but for possessing contraband, using drugs, ignoring orders, or using profanity."

Thousands are isolated for whatever reasons authorities choose. Some were for being gang members "based on information from other inmates who are rewarded for 'snitching,' " whether or not what they said was true.

Mentally ill inmates are punished. So are children needing “protection,” gays, lesbians, and transsexuals, Muslim for praying to the wrong God, others for their political beliefs, or those reporting rape by prison officials and/or guards. "In Virginia, a dozen Rastafarian men have been in solitary for ten years because they refuse to cut their hair on religious grounds."

Long-term effects are profound. They include severe anxiety, panic, rage, loss of control, emotional breakdown, hallucinations, profound despair and hopelessness, regressive behavior, paranoia, self-mutiliation, suicidal thoughts, and other self-destructive behavior.

Over time, everyone's vulnerable to emotional breakdown and uncontrolled behavior. Long-term confinement in windowless cells 23 hour a day causes madness. Even the strongest-willed break.

More »

Stephen Lendman

A Palestinian fireman extinguishes a fire at a building after
an Israeli air strike on Gaza City. (M. Abed/AFP/Getty)

International laws are clear and unequivocal. Fourth Geneva's Article 146 requires "the High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances."

They're required to prosecute offenders committing grave breaches, including crimes of war and against humanity. Israel and America get off scot-free. Their lawlessness continues unabated and unpunished.

Both countries spurn international laws, norms and obligations with impunity. Ceasefires also aren't observed.

Four days of Israeli terror bombing left at least 25 Palestinian dead and dozens injured, some seriously. Civilian men, women and children were affected.

After an Egyptian brokered truce all Gazan sides accepted, Israel preemptively attacked a funeral procession east of Gaza City. Three Palestinians were injured. On March 14, Israeli warplanes bombed northern Gaza. Damage but no injuries were reported.

In response, Islamic Jihad held a Monday press conference, saying:

"We will not agree on a (one-sided) ceasefire stipulated by Israel. Neither do we accept (one) while the lives of our people are taken without restraint."

"Those who have hardly had time to breathe while they seek a ceasefire deal should send their message to the enemy, rather than to the resistance."

Both sides are obligated to observe agreed on ceasefires. Unilateral acceptance doesn't work. Palestinians tried numerous times futilely. Israeli killing continues unabated. It still does plus ongoing crimes against humanity throughout the Territories.

Once again, Israeli authorities proved their mettle. They say one thing and do another. Decades of occupation showed negotiating with vipers don't work. In Occupied Palestine, they're lawless, racist, vicious, and ruthless.

More »

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs

Last night Ali Abunimah and other respected Palestinian writers and activists signed a statement calling for “The Disavowal of the Racism and Antisemitism of Gilad Atzmon,” who is winding up his U.S. tour with events in Washington, DC today and tomorrow. The Washington Report is convinced that Atzmon’s interview tonight by Prof. Norton Mezvinsky couldn’t come at a better time. Please read Abunimah’s statement and Atzmon’s response below. Then come to tonight’s discussion and decide for yourself whether to shun Atzmon or engage him in debate. For those who want to further explore the renowned jazz musician’s ideas and music, copies of Atzmon’s latest book, The Wandering Who?, as well as his three CDs, will be available for purchase.

Wednesday, March 14, 6:30-8:30 PM Gilad Atzmon is interviewed by Prof. Norton Mezvinsky, (Connecticut State University Professor of History Emeritus) at Mount Vernon Place United Methodist Church, 900 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20001 (free, open to public, light dinner)
Thursday, March 15, 5-6:30 PM DC Peace House, 1233 12th St. NW, Washington DC 20005

More »

Roy Eidelson

Amid disturbing reports that psychologists were involved in the abuse and torture of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere, the American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Psychological Ethics and National Security (PENS) met in the summer of 2005. Over two days, they considered whether the Bush administration's no-holds-barred "enhanced interrogation" policies crossed ethical boundaries for military psychologists. Six of the nine voting task force members were on the payroll of the military/intelligence establishment, and several of them worked in the chains of command when and where instances of abuse and torture had reportedly occurred. So, we should not be surprised by the task force's conclusion that psychologists play an important role in keeping detainee interrogations "safe, legal, ethical, and effective." This assessment affirmed, nearly verbatim, the military's own description of Behavioral Science Consultation Team (BSCT) psychologists - a description that had been provided to the task force in writing before their deliberations even began.

More »

Chris Marsden

On Monday, Russia and China refused to sign a new draft resolution put before the United Nations Security Council condemning the regime of Bashir al-Assad, on the grounds that it could be used to justify military intervention in support of the Syrian opposition.

This was despite private talks between US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Clinton, Britain’s William Hague and France’s Alain Juppe all bitterly denounced Moscow and Beijing at a special session of the Security Council on the “Arab Spring.”

Russia and China know very well that a UN imprimatur would immediately shift the balance of forces in favour of a plan for regime-change.

Lavrov denounced “risky recipes of geo-political engineering which can only result in a spread of the conflict.” China’s UN envoy, Li Baodong, said, “No external parties should engage in military intervention in Syria and push for regime-change.”

More »

Stephen Lendman

The funeral of Mashaal Tammo, a Kurdish member of
the new Syrian National Council who called for unity
across ethnic and religious groups. Who would benefit
from disagreements between the factions? (Photo: AP)

International law permits justifiable self-defense. Targeted killings are prohibited, especially premeditated ones like America and Israel repeatedly commit for reasons other than claimed.

These incidents constitute cold-blooded murder. US drone killings and rampaging death squads, as well as Israel's deplorable history and latest ritual slaughter highlight the issue. International law prohibits anticipatory self-defense. It amounts to using force to deter it.

Under the UN Charter's Article 2(4):

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Only two exceptions apply. Article 51 permits "individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security."

In addition, a nation may anticipate self-defense in situations where verifiable, compelling evidence shows imminent or already initiated armed attacks.

For example, if nations face hostile mobilized troops on their borders, self-defense is justified if invasion seems likely. Or if specific provable knowledge of impending terrorist attacks are known, preventive defensive action is warranted.

However, anticipatory self-defense based on unproved allegations is lawless. For example, attacking Iraq for allegedly possessing WMDs had no basis in international law. Moreover, possession of any weapons proves no intent to use them. In the case of Iraq, of course, allegations were entirely spurious.

Key is that employing anticipatory (or preemptive) self-defense against nations, groups, or individuals based on alleged threats is prohibited and lawless if undertaken.

More »

Arthur Silber

US troops peeing on dead / dying Afghan resistance fighters.
Screenshot from the You Tube video. The original video has
been removed from YouTube in an act of blatant censorship.

When I was 11 or 12, I was stopped by one of the neighborhood kids as I walked home one day. Gary was in my grade; even at that age, I knew he was remarkably stupid. He was also much stronger than I was. Gary was very athletic; I was not. He had a sizable group of friends; I did not. I was overweight, and I knew -- everyone knew -- that I was "different" from most other kids in at least several ways. Gary and I had never had much to do with each other; that day, for some reason, he decided that he had some business to conduct with me.

"Where have you been?," he asked, in a manner suggesting I'd answer if I knew what was good for me. I told him I'd been at my piano lesson. He looked at me with a puzzled expression and thought about it for a moment or two. "I don't want you going to piano lessons any more." Gary said it as a simple declaration of fact: this is what he wanted, and it would happen. I looked puzzled in my turn; I wondered what on earth he meant. Gary noted my expression, and he took a step closer to me, his face tightening with distaste and disapproval. "You aren't going to any more piano lessons. If I catch you going to one, I'm going to beat the crap out of you."

I looked down at the ground without speaking. I couldn't make sense of what he was saying. I understood the words, but why did this have anything at all to do with him? Why did he even care? After a few moments passed and I still hadn't said anything in response, Gary said: "Do you understand what I'm telling you?" He was leaning into me by this time, and his threatening manner convinced me that the first beating would take place then and there if I didn't answer. "Yes," I said. "I understand." "Good," he replied. "No more piano lessons." And he turned back toward his house, dismissing me.

More »

Medea Benjamin

Medea Benjamin being busted. (AIG demo)

“Stripping Protestors In Pink Bras Crashed Bank Of America CEO Brian Moynihan's Speech,” declared Business Insider on March 8, showing Moynihan’s stern photo with a pink bra playfully dangling in the air beside him.

It’s true, things did get a bit wild at Citi's Financial Services conference at New York’s Waldorf Astoria when Brian Moynihan got on stage and began flipping through his tedious powerpoint.

While the hotel security was busy watching anti-bank protesters rallying outside, CODEPINK cofounder Jodie Evans, dressed in a hot pink bustier, burst into the conference room. “Bust up Bank of America before it busts up America”, she shouted, before being hauled out by security guards. “As I was saying,” continued a deadpan Moynihan to the laughter of the crowd, returning to the dreary slides that tried to put a rosy spin on this dinosaur of a company whose share price has plummeted while it continues to foreclose on families’ homes and faces tens of billions of dollars in damages from lawsuits over mortgage investments.

Little did Moynihan know that the excitement at what is normally a bankers’ snoozefest had just begun.

More »

Stephen Lendman

On March 11, Assad repeated what he's said numerous times. He is "ready to support any honest effort to solve the situation."

He told former UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan (Ban Ki-moon's envoy appointed with Washington's approval) that doing so depends on accurately assessing conditions on the ground. It also requires admitting Syria's dealing with Western-backed insurgents.

As a result, he’s obligated to protect Syrians from heavily armed gangs. Violence won't stop until chaos, instability, and terrorism they cause ends.

Annan came to Syria on a mission. A reliable imperial tool, his one-way settlement terms involved Assad accepting Western demands.

Assad said "no political dialogue or political activity can succeed while there are armed terrorist groups operating and spreading chaos and instability."

Annan wanted none of it. His pro-Western marching orders mandated he follow them to the letter. Assad never had a chance for honest dialogue and peaceful resolution. Washington won't tolerate it.

More »