VIPS Warning to POTUS on Syria intelligence

 

"We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.” We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandumimmediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised. Secretary of State John Kerry departs for a Sept. 6 trip to Europe where he plans to meet with officials to discuss the Syrian crisis and other issues. (State Department photo) The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond … the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today..."  VIPS

----------------------------

I am a co-drafter and signer of this appeal.  pl 

 

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/06/obama-warned-on-syrian-intel/

 

Comments

[optimax]

I'd love to see your letter published in the NYT or Washington Post.

[VietnamVet]

Colonel,

I applaud your efforts to discern reality behind the smokescreen of propaganda and to tell us the truth.

Congressman Grayson interview on NewHour last night was astonishing for its clarity:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec13/grayson_09-05.html

For an explanation of why America is about to embark on its third failed war in the Middle East, I emphatically recommend Andrew Bacevich’s interview on Moyers & company:

http://billmoyers.com/segment/andrew-bacevich-on-taking-action-in-syria/

[kao_hsien-chih]

Thank you, colonel, for doing the good work.

[Brien J Miller]

Bravo! Well done, sir.

[Tony]

Colonel,

I salute you for your patriotic efforts. I wish the members of the congress were half as patriotic and brave as you are.

[Castellio]

I consider this a much needed and historic initiative by you and your co-signers.

[Bandolero]

PL

Thank you. In the name of humanity.

[Rd.]

Col,

may not agree with you at times, but my hats off to you sir...

Given the three branches of government ignore the constitution, could one hope for JCS at least hold up the oath to constitution and perhaps consider resignation at the appropriate time?

[MRW]

Effing great letter.

[CTuttle]

Bravo, Col...! This grizzled old Commo Chief salutes you and everyone of you brave and principled Officers, in exposing the Emperor's threadbare wardrobe...!

[Eliot]

Do we have any chemical weapons experts in the room? Matthew Asheville has posted an alternative hypothesis.

http://syriaanalysis.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/10/

He proposes that the casualties were caused by themobaric explosives.

"Fuel air explosives can have similar effects of chemical attacks. The United States Defense Intelligence Agency produced a 1993 study about fuel air weapons. The study says, “the kill mechanism against living targets is unique–and unpleasant…. What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs.… If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common [Fuel Air Explosive] fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as most chemical agents. (Italics added.) This point cannot be emphasized enough. If the rockets identified by the Brown Moses blog are unexploded or partially exploded fuel air explosives, then the chemicals in the rockets could create a cloud as lethal as most chemical weapons"

[joe brand]

Recognizing that it's easy for me to say this, doesn't a military officer or intelligence agency executive who knows that the executive branch is building a case for war on a calculated set of known lies have a responsibility to make that knowledge public, directly and loudly?

The really damning thing will be to see the United States go to war against Syria without congressional authorization, against the realities of the available evidence, and without any resignations or acts of refusal from the officer corps.

[JLCampos]

Admirable.

[Walrus]

Thank you Colonel for you and your colleagues bravery. I do think that your group is still too kind to Obama - leaving him the option of blaming his actions on bad advice, presumably firing Clapper as the sacrificial lamb.

My own view, which you may disagree with, is that Obama, like Bush, made his wishes known and relied on his acolytes to satisfy him.

I am reminded of the account J.Robert Oppenheimer gave of his Sanskrit teacher, professor Arthur Ryder: "Ryder knew that a man could commit irretrievable error, and in the face of this fact, all others are secondary". This, in my opinion, is likely to be History's verdict on Obamas Presidency.

[Florent]

This is great!

[confusedponderer]

I listened to thee Grayson interview, and I was struck by the interviewer's slightly incredulous question:

"But ... but ... but ... do you propose then - no action? What is the role of the US today ... in, in a case like Syria, what is the role as leaders in the globe?"

Unwittingly, he sums up everything that is problematic in Washington about this war. The US must do ... something!

After briefly talking a good game, Grayson's to me ruined it by suggesting that the US, instead of bombing Syria, should arm the rebels, who, as Kerry tells us, are on their way of becoming secular or moderate.

It is emblematic that the 'liver eater of Homs', Abu Sakkar, is leading the so-called moderate group Al Farouq Brigades. I found it startling that press people spent time and ink on the question whether he actually ate, as he said the liver, or the heart or lung - while to me the only relevant point to be made on the matter is that this guy is a cannibalistic criminal with a habit of brutally killing his prisoners. And a moderate, of course.

The joke is that he is, of course, also an Islamist, and his moderation shows in that, after the Endsieg, he wants to hold elections before they put his favourite Mullah in charge. The radical Islamists of the Al Nusra Front sharply disagree with them on that they don't want the elections, probably because they have their own favourite mullah.

Obviously, glorious prospects for a post Assad era.

It ought to come to Grayson's mind that the rebels will do ... stuff with these weapons, like killing people, including for instance executing their prisoners (before throwing the bodies in a well), of course, only if they cease preferring decapitations.

Grayson is not a dove, he is just against bombing this time. But hey - nice tie!

Notable also: Both Grayson and the interviewer take Assad's use of chemical weapons for granted, and agree that Assad must be sanctioned in some way. The only disagreement they have is on how. Looking at the two, the administration has succeeded in generating a mainstream consensus on the matter. The bully pulpit at work.

Grayson is an AIPAC creature. Perhaps one has to be in Florida, perhaps he is really into it. I can't say.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/rep-alan-grayson-is-proud_b_375850.html

In this case he is against their goal of attacking Syria, and I see his reference to arming the rebels as an attempt at 'compromise', never mind that it is just a different folly in pursuit of the same pipe dream - regime change.

But his opposition to the war on Syria suggests that perhaps Adam Horowitz of Mondoweiss is right when he writes the Lobby bit off more than they can chew.

http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/rep-alan-grayson-aipac-falls-to-the-wayside-when-the-public-weighs-in.html

But then, they have been whistling in the dark for so long. So, from over here, good luck leashing the hounds of war this time.

[Farmer Don]

Good for you.

Just as the USA was headed into a well needed era of "Peace Dividend", Obama wants to do this. Unbelievable!

Best of luck.

[JohnH]

No sign of your letter on the NY Times web site.

The scum should replace their slogan about "all the news fit to print" with "only the news that won't inconvenience the powerful."

I remember reading their coverage of an early Vietnam War protest. It was like they were covering an entirely different event, one that existed only in their imagination.

It was one of the best learning experiences I had in college.

[confusedponderer]

Some more moderates:

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/06/20348901-not-one-of-bad-guys-but-syrian-rebel-group-proclaims-anti-american-bent?lite

[DH]

Colonel Badass strikes again.

[turcopolier]

DH

Woof! pl

[stanley henning]

Here is my probably not to be read letter to the President:

Dear Mr. President,
As a retired Army officer who worked political-military issues in the latter part of my career I hope with all my heart you will back off the ill-advised attack on Syria. You hit the Assad regime and all you have is an open invitation to the Al Qaida and other terrorists on the other side - and they are equally heinous - this is a no win situation. Unfortunately much of the Muslim world appears incapable of joining the modern world. This is only one example.
Stanley E. Henning

[David Habakkuk]

walrus,

I have with time come round to your and Michael Brenner's view of Obama as a classic, if not indeed rather extreme, case of a narcissistic personality. However, on the question of whether or not he was consciously complicit in a kind of contemporary version of the Gleiwitz operation, it seems to me he has to be regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

However, and particularly if the account given in the VIPS letter of the coordinating meetings at Antakya is correct, it would seem that there are only two possibilities. Either Obama is consciously complicit, or critical elements of U.S. foreign policy are being run by a cabal of intelligence chiefs who are exploiting the gullibility, naivety, and indeed narcissism of a President who is simply not up to the demands of his position.

The same either/or, obviously, exists in relation to David Cameron.

The profoundest of thanks are due to the authors and signatories of this letter -- an also to those serving U.S. intelligence officers who have put their careers on their line by supplying the information outlined in the letter.

I would like to think there would be figures of comparable integrity and courage in British intelligence -- but so far, there are no publicly available signs of this being so.

If the leaders of China, Russia, Iran and many other nations have to base their planning on the assumption that the United States is capable of engaging in policies of 'regime change' on the basis of blatant 'false flag' operations, we are heading for an anarchic international system.

[The beaver]

Col,

I was thinking that it would be a great idea if every single American citizen send a copy (or a link) to his /her Congressman, woman or senator.

[Babak Makkinejad]

Rest assured that your last paragraph has come to pass.