You've been had - AGAIN.

[Maedhros]

As many suspected, the Administration's justification for air strikes within Syria was all smoke and mirrors.

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/28/u-s-officials-invented-terror-group-justify-bombing-syria/

As the Obama Administration prepared to bomb Syria without congressional or U.N. authorization, it faced two problems. The first was the difficulty of sustaining public support for a new years-long war against ISIS, a group that clearly posed no imminent threat to the “homeland.” A second was the lack of legal justification for launching a new bombing campaign with no viable claim of self-defense or U.N. approval.

The solution to both problems was found in the wholesale concoction of a brand new terror threat that was branded “The Khorasan Group.” After spending weeks depicting ISIS as an unprecedented threat — too radical even for Al Qaeda! — administration officials suddenly began spoon-feeding their favorite media organizations and national security journalists tales of a secret group that was even scarier and more threatening than ISIS, one that posed a direct and immediate threat to the American Homeland. Seemingly out of nowhere, a new terror group was created in media lore.

. . .

But once it served its purpose of justifying the start of the bombing campaign in Syria, the Khorasan narrative simply evaporated as quickly as it materialized. Foreign Policy‘s Shane Harris, with two other writers, was one of the first to question whether the “threat” was anywhere near what it had been depicted to be:

But according to the top U.S. counterterrorism official, as well as Obama himself, there is “no credible information” that the militants of the Islamic State were planning to attack inside the United States. Although the group could pose a domestic terrorism threat if left unchecked, any plot it tried launching today would be “limited in scope” and “nothing like a 9/11-scale attack,” Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, said in remarks at the Brookings Institution earlier this month. That would suggest that Khorasan doesn’t have the capability either, even if it’s working to develop it.

“Khorasan has the desire to attack, though we’re not sure their capabilities match their desire,” a senior U.S. counterterrorism official told Foreign Policy.

On September 25, The New York Times — just days after hyping the Khorasan threat to the homeland — wrote that “the group’s evolution from obscurity to infamy has been sudden.” And the paper of record began, for the first time, to note how little evidence actually existed for all those claims about the imminent threats posed to the homeland:

American officials have given differing accounts about just how close the group was to mounting an attack, and about what chance any plot had of success. One senior American official on Wednesday described the Khorasan plotting as “aspirational” and said that there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works.

Literally within a matter of days, we went from “perhaps in its final stages of planning its attack” (CNN) to “plotting as ‘aspirational’” and “there did not yet seem to be a concrete plan in the works” (NYT).

Indeed, after the air strikes were launched, the "Khorason Group" suddenly dropped back into obscurity:

Regarding claims that an attack was “imminent,” Comey said: “I don’t know exactly what that word means…’imminent’” — a rather consequential admission given that said imminence was used as the justification for launching military action in the first place.

Even more remarkable, it turns out the very existence of an actual “Khorasan Group” was to some degree an invention of the American government. NBC’s Engel, the day after he reported on the U.S. government’s claims about the group for Nightly News, seemed to have serious second thoughts about the group’s existence, tweeting:



Indeed, a Nexis search for the group found almost no mentions of its name prior to the September 13 AP article based on anonymous officials. There was one oblique reference to it in a July 31 CNN op-ed by Peter Bergen. The other mention was an article in the LA Times from two weeks earlier about Pakistan which mentioned the group’s name as something quite different than how it’s being used now: as “the intelligence wing of the powerful Pakistani Taliban faction led by Hafiz Gul Bahadur.” Tim Shorrock noted that the name appears in a 2011 hacked Stratfor email published by WikiLeaks, referencing a Dawn article that depicts them as a Pakistan-based group which was fighting against and “expelled by” (not “led by”) Bahadur.

. . .

What happened here is all-too-familiar. The Obama administration needed propagandistic and legal rationale for bombing yet another predominantly Muslim country. While emotions over the ISIS beheading videos were high, they were not enough to sustain a lengthy new war.

Nothing this Administration leaks or states regarding matters of war should be given any more credence than that spewed forth by the previous Administration.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. !!!

[msanthrope]

10. Well....Greenwald has to push this narrative because the fact that

the head of AQ's Iranian branch..and a member of Khorasan was just killed by us in Syria...fighting alongside ISIS. If you are an apologist for people like Anwar Awlaki (also Khorasan) that doesn't fit well with the narrative.

If you google my user name and Khorasan there's plenty of more info. AQAP aren't gone yet...and in fact, all these players made the 1267 list over a decade ago.

President Obama just managed to strike a major AQ financier, and 9/11 conspirator. That some people are upset at that success does not surprise me in the least.

[Tarheel_Dem]

21. You see, there's an agenda at play here. I realize there are sympathizers in the West, or else....

why would they be leaving their home countries to join up? The attempt to minimize any & all threats from terrorist groups plays right into the hands of the "US can do nothing right" crowd, until something major happens, the apologists tend to scatter & regroup.

I'm still waiting for GG's critique of Russia, but I won't hold my breath. Since, apparently, his pet billionaire is a big donor to Ukraine opposition groups. GG's boss plays both sides of the fence obviously, so they have walked very carefully away from the Ukraine/Russia debacle. He's either a US government collaborator, or he's erected an anti-government media empire as cover.

Marcy Wheeler, one of the all-star launch line-up of Pierre Omidyar’s “The Intercept” has left her role as senior policy analyst at the site, even before it has officially launched.

According to Capital New York, which first broke the news, “Wheeler, who writes regularly about national security and civil liberties on her blog, has only published one article to date on the First Look Media.”

The departure comes after criticism (mainly from Pando, it should be noted) over Omidyar’s donations to Ukraine opposition groups and also the Intercept’s lack of updates in recent weeks. As I wrote here, Wheeler’s output had largely been limited to her own blog, Empty Wheel, and she appeared to have quietly dropped the Intercept from her official bio on other sites.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/02/28/1281233/-Pando-Pierre-Omidyar-Helped-Fund-Ukraine-Opposition

http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/

[flamingdem]

51. Russia gets a pass from gg even while wiping press

Freedoms out as happened this week.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. Why is that, you reckon?

[msanthrope]

70. After taking Koch money, GG's moved on to other moneyed interests. Wheeler,

who has finally realized exactly what the likes of Hamsher and Greenwald are...is moving on.

President Obama directly hit AlQaeda.....and hit those fuckers hard. And there is money to be made in making sure Democrats don't take the credit for doing what a Bush could not.

[Tarheel_Dem]

79. You got that right. Bought & paid for. There's a name for it, but I won't mention it here.

[JI7]

41. i wonder if he will write about what is happening in hong kong

with comments from snowden since that's hwere he went after not wanting to live in a place like the US.

[flamingdem]

47. Or about recent repression of the media

In Russia ..

[msanthrope]

71. You ain't gonna hear shit from Glenn. He knows who butters his bread. nt

[woo me with science]

80. He's a poopyhead!

Let's all mass at the top of the thread to divert and smear!



Keep up the good work, corporate citizens!

[whereisjustice]

99. Incredible isn't it? Stilted dribble trying to give the NSA/CIA pig a makeover.

Has the Democratic Party become so fragile and weak that it can only resort to a juvenile defense of what is clearly objectionable behavior by our government? Fox News style attacks on Snowden and Greenwald are both transparent and idiotic. Ultimately this keeps intelligent voters from the voting booth.

If there are Democrats happy with our wars and police state, perhaps they should just vote Republican. Stomping their feet day after day that the Democratic Party isn't conservative enough nor deferential enough to secretive Government authority is just a waste of everyone's time.

[Scuba]

120. +1,000

[cui bono]

138. Exactly. They're having a grand time talking amongst themselves.

[flamingdem]

50. No excitement on DU about zapping

The head of Khorasan even tho it was on the first try! Congrats to those who pulled it off. I posted the news in lbn still hasn't garnered more than 4 recs but those conspiracy posts get dozens!

[msanthrope]

72. We get a 9/11 conspirator, and DU publishes shit from GG.

There's an agenda in denying that the President did what the Republicans could not.

[MADem]

73. You can say that again! nt

[msanthrope]

74. Well...GG has measured his audience well. nt

[MADem]

75. No doubt of that, certainly! nt

[Luminous Animal]

78. Odd. Khorasan does not show up on the list.

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/pdf/AQList.pdf

[msanthrope]

124. Every single known member does. And if you understood basic Arabic,

you'd understand what "Khorasan" means in the context of jihad....

Here's a primer.....

http://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520244481

[cui bono]

140. That's a link with no info about Khorasan.

Can you enlighten us with some facts?

[Fawke Em]

150. I know about the region and I know what the word means...

and where it came from.

However, that doesn't mean that the group, "Khorasan" exists and I really don't think they did.

"When you see that black flags have appeared from Khorasan then join them. Because Allah’s Khalifa Mahdi will be among them."

[marble falls]

20. Just because he wears an aluminum hat doesn't mean there're no conspiracies.....

He wears an aluminum foil hat to be ironic. And they're very inexpensive. The girls really seem to like them, too.

[Tarheel_Dem]

22. !!!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

108. Khorosan literally came out of nowhere. So, how do you explain it? I said in a post

last week that they seemed to appear out of nowhere.

So, please tell us about Khorosan and it's history. Thanks.

Funny how the beheadings by ISIS gave the MIC all they needed to crank up the assembly lines.

[Tarheel_Dem]

111. You do know that Khorosan is just a rebranding of old Senior AQ members, right?

[cui bono]

141. So you're saying they made it up then?

Since AQ is not an immediate threat to the US.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. Yeah. OK. Just laugh. But, remember when the Grenadian Navy invaded Miami?

No, you don't. Because, our valiant troops invaded the Mighty Grenadian Empire and destroyed it's mighty navy. The hulks of the two fishing boats may still be found in Grenadian waters.

[arcane1]

4. Don't forget the massive Panamanian military!

They were a THREAT, I say!!

[Enthusiast]

16. They might have been trying to acquire deadly toxins.

You just never know. I says we attack everyone, simultaneously. That way no threats will remain.

[MisterP]

12. "a major military bastion to export terror and undermine democracy. We got there just in time"

[Maedhros]

15. We know exactly where the Khorasan Group is.

They're in the area around Aleppo and Tall Rifat and east, west, south, and north somewhat...

[Volaris]

29. THIS.

U win the thread, AFAIC

[NealK]

105. +1

[ctsnowman]

118. Exactly!

[Scuba]

121. Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

[woo me with science]

137. +1

[Art_from_Ark]

77. Yeah, we got there just in time

to draw people's attention away from the Beiruit barracks disaster.

Beiruit barracks bombing-- October 23, 1983

Invasion of Grenada--October 25, 1983

[Jackpine Radical]

27. They were a hairsbreadth away from launching an invading force of Grenadiers.

Or was that a hare's breath?

[KoKo]

145. Well...last time I encountered a "Hare" it's breath was short and halting.

Probably Hair's Breadth...meaning the fineness of the circumference of a human or animal's body hair.

But, then....this subject is too deep for me. But, they probably were a "fine point" away from full launch. Rockets/Bombs from the Sky was the "way out?" Best to wait a bit for full assault? A few nitpicking legal things to sort out..and such.

But then...it was a rough day at work....so I'm hardly one to parse it out.

[secondwind]

46. I agree.

[leftstreet]

5. Fool me once...er, what?

[KG]

6. the obama admin is just ready to lie to justify its fucked up foriegn policy as the last crew

who'd've guessed?

[OnyxCollie]

7. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Maedhros]

8. My favorite parts are these:

The U.S. government, Orr explained, is trying to keep this all a secret; they won’t even mention the group’s name in public out of security concerns! But Orr was there to reveal the truth, as his “sources confirm the Al Qaeda cell goes by the name Khorasan.” And they’re “developing fresh plots to attack U.S. aviation.”

Surely the Obama Administration will hunt down and prosecute the horrible leaker that released this terribly dangerous information that should have been kept secret and will endanger American citizens by tipping off the "New Enemy" that is worse that the "worse-than-ten-thousand-Hitlers ISIS."

I mean, they tortured Manning for releasing embarrassing diplomatic cables - this leaker should get the death penalty.

The very next day, a Pentagon official claimed a U.S. airstrike killed “the Khorasan leader,” and just a few days after that, U.S. media outlets celebrated what they said was the admission by jihadi social media accounts that “the leader of the al Qaeda-linked Khorasan group was killed in a U.S. air strike in Syria.”

And then, after the "Khorasan Group" served its purpose, they magically "scattered" after their "leader" was killed, never to be brought up again...

[woo me with science]

81. [phone]

[misterhighwasted]

9. You put your right foot in, you put your right foot out, your put your right foot in & you shake it

Last edited Mon Sep 29, 2014, 04:58 PM - Edit history (2)

all about, you do the Hokie Pokie & you turn yourself around & THAT'S WHAT THIS BULL SHIT IS ALL ABOUT.
Left Foot..you put your left foot in, you put your left foot out, you put your left foot in & you shake it all about, you do the Hokie Pokie & you turn yourself around & THAT"S WHAT ITS ALL FUCKIN ABOUT.

The Right did it first & now its the Left's turn.
I am so pissed that I gave the last smidge of trust in me to this administration which is just the same as the last one.

Here we go round again doing the same damned Hokie Pokie dance.
Left foot in, right hand in, turn yourself around cuz that's what it all about.. .fucked up.

[gcomeau]

129. You realize this entire post is discredited right wing bullshit... right?

This is the exact same line that was simultaneously pushed by Limbaugh and his ilk. When are people going to wake up to what Greenwald actually is?

The only legitimate dispute over whether Khorasan exists is whether they themselves call themselves that or that's the name the US intelligence services decided to use for them, which is a meanignless bit of nitpicking... not whether the people targeted are imaginary.

[cui bono]

143. Where is the info that discredits this? Leave out the GG bashing, that doesn't fly.

If you can't discredit it with more than a simple attack on the messenger you haven't discredited it one bit.

[KoKo]

148. For those of us here who don't watch that RW Stuff or Listen to it...

How is that important? How does that affect us. Many of us have a long history with our Reporters whom we have found trustworthy through these tumultuous years. Yet there seems to be an influx of people posting "Glenn Beck said this, Rush Limbaugh said that or Raun or whatever their names are Paul put out this or that.

Try the "Discussionist"...apparently that's a great place to hang out and argue with Faux News/RW Radio sources for discussion. Most of us over here are too savvy to bother with that crap.

[jwirr]

11. I believe Richard Engel. Been watching him on Rachel for years. And if he is right like he usually

is, then yes we have been had.

[nationalize the fed]

13. k/r

[lumberjack_jeff]

14. Welcome to short attention-span theater.

Re-run? Americans can't remember what they had for breakfast.

[Enthusiast]

17. We were watching football.

[markpkessinger]

18. This is essentilly what I said . . .

. . . in a post last Wednesday. While many agreed, there were some predictable responses by folks trying to retrofit Khorasan to what we've been doing all along.

[JoeyT]

116. Eh. They're mostly the same folks

that retroactively decided that torture was ok all along, so I'd treat sending them into fits as a badge of honor.

[RufusTFirefly]

19. I heard ISIS dumped babies out of their incubators and onto the cold floor. That true?

Meanwhile, while we're obsessing over ISIS, Nicaraguan rebels are just one day's drive from Harlingen, Texas!
We must protect the Homeland!™

[Ed Suspicious]

23. Warmonger is as warmonger does.

"Nothing this Administration leaks or states regarding matters of war should be given any more credence than that spewed forth by the previous Administration."

[CJCRANE]

24. There are so many Al Qaeda #1's and #2's...

We have little idea what's really going on half a world away.

In reality it's all just a story.

An expensive story.

They bomb stuff using our tax money, then tell us what happened.

Then a decade later, they'll tell us the same story all over again.

[BuelahWitch]

31. And people who really need them will lose benefits over this shit

Because they won't raise taxes on the rich to pay for their war.

[Jamastiene]

112. Exactly.

Any more, I look at it all from the bottom line...how is this going to affect the 99%. The 1% don't have to worry. We will be paying for their profiteering, because there is ALWAYS money available for bombs. Let American children fucking starve. There are bombs to make to fight the latest boogie man. I've had it up to the proverbial here with war, war, never ending war on my fucking dime.

[ctsnowman]

119. And 40 years

later they admit they mislead us but it's too late then...

[pansypoo53219]

25. i call bullshit. no reason for the crazy muslim nuts to align themselves. sadly, the bushevics

so mucked up the area, there is likely no way to put the egg back together thanks to the neo-con strategery.

[MohRokTah]

26. DU Unrec

[Brigid]

28. I wasn't "had."

I never believed the so-called "justifications" for this in the first place.

[Maedhros]

30. The title was directed toward those who support this latest war of choice.

I understand that not all DUers have fallen for the propaganda.

[xiamiam]

35. most of the posters in this thread never believed either..we've been there, done that

those pushing war dont even care if its a believable lie any longer...come hell or high water, they will do what they want to do.. they no longer care if the entire nation is opposed..the last believable lie was claiming obama to be an agent of hope and change..which proved to be another lie, albeit one which many of us believed, at least for a while

[J_J_]

32. Terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of TV

"American intelligence agencies have concluded that it poses no immediate threat to the United States. Some officials and terrorism experts believe that the actual danger posed by ISIS has been distorted in hours of television punditry and alarmist statements by politicians"

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/11/world/middleeast/struggling-to-gauge-isis-threat-even-as-us-prepares-to-act.html?_r=2

[Maedhros]

37. There is a pattern developing here... [n/t]

[woo me with science]

82. Terrorism experts had better shut up.

I bet they will hear about that.

[Jamastiene]

113. They will be saying the opposite next week. n/t

[Dont call me Shirley]

33. MIC has their own agenda no president can stop.

As a side note, all this F*ing war is a massive contributor to global climate warming. In order to slow down the warming, we must cease creating war!

[brentspeak]

34. Yeah, the Commander in Chief is powerless

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. It's gonna be war anyway.

[brentspeak]

48. Is there some other Commander in Chief that we don't know about?

Someone other than the President who has the authority to commence military action on behalf of the US government???

You win Dumb Post of the Day.

[CJCRANE]

52. Bill Clinton once said "the media is the government"

implying that the MSM sets the agenda.

Then look at who owns the media...

[brentspeak]

53. That's nice. Who's the CIC, again? n/t

[cui bono]

144. You just don't get it.

It's NEVER Obama's fault/responsibility/<choose your word>. Ever.

[Dont call me Shirley]

60. No need for ridiculous personal attacks, Brent.

[rhett o rick]

98. Of course there is. It isn't rocket science. Do you think that when Obama became president

that he walked into the NSA and told them that their overreach under Bush had to stop? I bet they told him that he best be careful or he would be held responsible for the next terrorist attack. It's naive to think that a President can tell the NSA/CIA what to do.

[zeemike]

40. Or the CIC is just a title.

That hides the fact that who really commands us is in the shadows...like a puppet show.

[rhett o rick]

97. Let's say that the CiC tells Gen Clapper to do something he doesnt want to do. What happens if

Last edited Tue Sep 30, 2014, 08:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Gen Clapper tells him to go to hell? Gen Clapper and Gen Alexander and The rest of the NSA/CIA Security State were well in place before Obama came along. Why do you think that all of a sudden they would change their ideology? The power of the Security State transcends mere presidents.

[cui bono]

147. What would happen if a president came out in a press conference and told it all?

What would actually happen?

Could they shut it down? Shut down all media communications if it's a live conference? If enough of the info got out and then he was "taken care of" as others before him were, would the people know enough to revolt? Of course this is the US, so... they wouldn't care I guess. And the Red half would just not believe him, not sure how they would explain the media shut down and "disappearing" or whatever of the POTUS.

Really wonder how do we get out of this mess?

[rhett o rick]

151. I don't see a way out to be honest. Doesn't mean I won't continue to fight

as if I didn't know better. I think the powers in charge are too deeply intrenched. Just think of their almost unlimited resources not even counting the treasury. When things got tough after WW I some countries turned to dictatorships. The USofA was lucky because we had a tradition of democracy and we had enough Aristocrats that understood the value for everyone to help humanity. I think things will have to get a lot worse so that the media can no longer hide it and we desperately need members of the 1% to help us. While going to the streets with pitchforks sounds good, it would only make things worse.

I don't see a president coming out and exposing the Powers That Be. Too big of a risk for his/her family.

[Dreamer Tatum]

54. MIC and TPTB are weak-kneed and cowardly ways to spell POTUS. nt

[Dont call me Shirley]

57. Listen to Eisenhower's speech on his way out of office.

[Dreamer Tatum]

59. Why would I do that when I just heard the POTUS explain his actions to me?

Sorry, as much as it might chap some hineys, the head of the MIC and the head P in "TPTB" is the President. Period. Paragraph. End of Story.

[Dont call me Shirley]

62. And his decision was not based on strong advise from his military advisors?

[Dreamer Tatum]

63. Which he could have told them to pound up their asses.

Oh, wait. They "have something" on him. They're holding his kids hostage. They threatened him. How does this
fantasy script go again? I forget...someone "got to him," right?

[Dont call me Shirley]

64. Can you put your hands in your head? Oh no.

[Dreamer Tatum]

65. Whatever that means. nt

[geek tragedy]

38. Actually, the suckers are those who lap up

everything Greenwald says.

Greenwald lied about the most important claim in his story: the US had already begun to bomb ISIL in Syria before the khorasan stuff came out.

[stonecutter357]

49. this

[mrdmk]

55. Actually, you are 100% correct!

Some country that spans Europe and Asia put an end to that.

Now that that country has its own backyard disaster, we can have a good bombing session

[Luminous Animal]

66. Huh? On 9/23, the President announced that he had started the bombing campaign against ISIL the

previous day. Just as Greenwald reported.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/23/statement-president-airstrikes-syria

[geek tragedy]

67. Greenwald is claiming that the White House relied upon

Khorosan for its justification for bombing targets inside Syria.

[Luminous Animal]

69. No he said Khoroasan, the group that is being touted as an imminent threat to the U.S.,

would provide legal justification for not getting approval from both the U.N. and Congress.

[geek tragedy]

92. And he was lying, since the Obama admin never cited Khorasan as the justification for

strikes against ISIL.

Greensand is the one guilty of fabrication.

[Luminous Animal]

100. And Greenwald never said he cited Khorasan as the reason for starting another war.

Greenwald posited that this new, never before heard of group, touted by Obama as an imminent threat to the U.S., is a convenient LEGAL justification for bombing Syria and sidestepping UN and Congress approval prior to doing so

You're catapulting propaganda that Greenwald is lying and relying on the ignorance of your potential audience.

Most DUers aren't buying it and many are outright mocking you. I suggest you take this to DU's brother (gag) site and peddle it where ignorance abounds.

[geek tragedy]

102. Except Obama is not using Khorasan as a justification of bombing Syria/ISIL.

That much was true when Greenwald wrote his piece,

So, Greenwald is making shit up and lying by falsely and maliciously attributing a motive for his wacky doodle conspiracy theory the administration plainly does not have.

People who love Greenwald and hate the President will lap this crap up.

Which is why the only places it's getting play is rt.com and Infowars.com--Greenwald's ideological allies.

[Luminous Animal]

103. Why are we bombing ISIL without Congress or UN approval? By 9/22, it was universally

accepted that they posed no threat to the United States.

[geek tragedy]

104. Because they are destabilizing the entire region.

One can view that as a valid justification or reject it, but that's what's being offered--to prevent Iraq from turning into Afghanistan circa 1995.

[Luminous Animal]

106. So we side step the Constitution and the UN over destabilization. Destabilization is not a LEGAL

justification for starting a war. Imminent threat is.

[geek tragedy]

107. For air strikes, sidestepping the constitution and UN is de rigueur.

Even in liberal fantasy pablum written by Aaron Sorkin, air strikes are a matter for the president to deliberate upon, not get the permission of Congress or the Chinese and Russians.

And we're not starting a war, we're aiding several parties engaged in one.

[Luminous Animal]

110. Indeed. The oligarchs make their own reality. It is up to history to interpret it.

Air strikes are not war! So Hitler could have limited his incursion by bombing and justified it by saying, "What!? It's just an air strike!"

[truedelphi]

134. That is baloney. Read the US Constitution. It clearly states that

Congressional approval must come into play before a war can commence.

However, it is not only the President's fault - it is also the fault of our valiant Congressional leaders. Both Reid and Bohner could call their respective houses of Congress back into session.

So why won't they? Because there is an election in just a wee bit of time, and neither party wants to be on the record as being for the war, should the war not go well, or against the war, should the war turn out to be a smashing success.

[geek tragedy]

136. The constitution says congress has the authority

to declare war.

[hueymahl]

130. Absofuckinglutely

The defend Obama and any cost brigade seems to forget about mere niceties like the law when it comes to protecting him.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. K&R

[PeoViejo]

42. “aspirational”

Be careful what you wish for.

[ReRe]

43. How many times does one need to be hit over the head....

... with a bat to not understand what the fuck is going on? You need to get a bat and start fighting the fuck back! It's all a crock. It's a MIC crock. And now, Boehner won't even call Congress back and pass a resolution or declare WAR. He is abdicating his duty as the Speaker of the House. Money? Who the eff cares? Not the Republicans. This will just give them another reason to come after Social Security, Medicare/Madicaid, food stamps for the less fortunate, meals-on-wheels for Seniors, you name it.

WAR. IS. A. RACKET!

[Aerows]

44. No one that was paying attention

is shocked in the slightest.

The only people that have "been had" are the folks that didn't recognize history repeating itself. Same play, same theater, different actors.

My suspension of disbelief went out of the window years ago.

[Skittles]

90. THANK YOU

[WorseBeforeBetter]

146. "Carefully vetted moderate rebels"...

I actually heard that on CBS news. The United States will be supplying weapons to "carefully vetted moderate rebels." That was my Condi-mushroom-cloud-in-45-minutes moment.

[Aerows]

149. Mine, too

I could smell the bullshit from 1,000 miles away.

[FlatStanley]

45. But Chess!

[Jamastiene]

115. Oh noes, they are going to pelt you with rotten tomatoes.

Don't claim it is only chess. They'll call you racist. It is 12 dimensional super ninja chess. It's sickening, isn't it?

[FlatStanley]

117. Oh no! I'm headed for jury censure now!

[Doctor_J]

56. speak for yourself.

Some of us knew from the start this was bs

[Maedhros]

68. I know - many, actually.

The title was addressed to those who support this latest war of choice.

[malaise]

76. Not me

I know BS when I see it and it's all BS

[blkmusclmachine]

83. "lies, tell me lies, tell me sweet little lies..."

[Phlem]

84. Not me.

Iraq was a no go for me and neither is ISIS. Because after ISIS it will be something else. The war on terrorism is a hoax. It's an excuse for a never ending war.

Think if we'd had spent all that money on R&D. For every American, full time work with an above average salary, free college for US citizens, an advanced highway and infrastructure including energy, I can go on but no. We have to piss it all away in another war to keep US citizens "scared" indefinitely.

Man this has been bullshit from the beginning and it's just a larger pile now.

[woo me with science]

85. K&R Lies upon lies upon lies.

[font size=4]We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.[font size=3]
[font color=blue]George Orwell[/font size][/font color]

[KoKo]

86. Indeed! And who could have known "Memory Wipe Out" takes so

short a time.. One would have thought the memory of "Mushroom Clouds" over America, Aluminum Tubes, WMD, Deadly Gasses and Biochemicals, Yellow Cake from Niger and the rest of the LIES would have a longer memory...particularly on this website....

But..no...threaten with Fake Info about some Group that no one ever heard about...and we are Off to WAR again!

We can't afford it....we will create more terrorists and we are losing our reputation around the world while we go into decline here in our "Homeland" with lack of jobs, opportunity and vision for future with our young and threats against our old with cutting off their SS/Medicare which they paid for by Wall Streeters and (Zeke Emmanuel, brother of Democratic Chicago Mayo , Rahm) who think the old should die at age 75, (because they will get infirm and sickly and cost Govt. too much money), and the young who aren't part of the 1 or 2% should serve in our endless wars either as US Military or Mercenary Hires by Contractors to serve in our "endless" Wars.

Meanwhile George Clooney had a lavish wedding in Venice where he married a Human Rights Activist Lawyer. We should be thankful he cares about the "Common Person," but has enough money to indulge his fantasies. (So I'm told)

[nationalize the fed]

91. Don't forget "Babies Thrown Out of Incubators" Thanks to Hill & Knowlton

The Nayirah testimony was a testimony given before the non-governmental Congressional Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990 by a woman who provided only her first name, Nayirah. The testimony was widely publicized, and was cited numerous times by United States senators and the American president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War. In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ and that she was the daughter of Saud Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States...

Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has come to be regarded as a classic example of modern atrocity propaganda...


Hill & Knowlton

In 1990, after being approached by a Kuwaiti expatriate in New York, Hill & Knowlton took on "Citizens for a Free Kuwait." The objective of the national campaign was to raise awareness in the United States about the dangers posed by Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein to Kuwait.

Hill & Knowlton conducted a $1 million study to determine the best way to win support for strong action. H & K had the Wirthington Group conduct focus groups to determine the best strategy that would influence public opinion.[40] The study found that an emphasis on atrocities, particularly the incubator story, was the most effective.

Hill & Knowlton is estimated to have been given as much as $12 million by the Kuwaitis for their public relations campaign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

[KoKo]

125. True....probably the same group that invented Khorasan...

How could I have forgotten that.

[stevenleser]

87. This is one of the funniest claims I have seen in a while.

Good job, the laugh brightened my day.

[bobduca]

88. These threads are helpful in determining posters's motives.

Last edited Tue Sep 30, 2014, 12:13 AM - Edit history (1)

Watch carefully. Post accurate descriptions of loyalists fury at your own peril....

[woo me with science]

95. It's like a glorious Big Bang of string theory propaganda!

The original MIC lies exploding into a multiverse of flim-flam in cyberspace!

[Skittles]

89. I was not "had" the first time

I've always seen through the bullshit

[geek tragedy]

93. Apparently not, since you're believing Greenwald's nt

[MrMickeysMom]

156. Nor I, Skittles...

We wonder at our house just why this is the case… how stupid people still are...

[whereisjustice]

94. I support bombing the Kardashian Group.

[hatrack]

96. "'Asian Dawn'?" "I read about them in Time Magazine."

[Luminous Animal]

101. +!

[Maedhros]

109. The responses to my thread had taken a weird turn, so I logged out to take a look

at the large number of responses from those on my ignore list.

Wow - not a substantive comment from any of them. Just more misdirected Greenwald hate.

Proves my strategy of liberal ignore list usage.

[SidDithers]

139. Ignore - yer doin' it wrong...nt

Sid

[KoKo]

142. It's an "eye opener" isn't it when one's Ignore List is viewed Off Line

and one views the Posts with no links, no parsing of the OP's link to post and no discussion or even argument that is well thought out proving the poster even bothered to READ the article. It's just well...to be charitable....Junk Stuff.

Makes me glad that DU-3 has the "Ignore List."

[Maedhros]

152. "Internet Pollution" is what I call it.

The ignore list is like a HEPA filter for stupidity.

[NanceGreggs]

114. Just an observation.

There are only two (that I've seen - and I stand to be corrected) current OPs about Greenwald's latest spew - which is notable in itself - and neither of them mentioned GG in the thread title.

Not so long ago, any GG "news" included his name in the thread title - which was a guaranteed attention-getter. This OP doesn't even mention his name within the OP text.

Perhaps GG isn't the "draw" he used to be. Perhaps even his once-staunch supporters know they got "had" on his last grand pronouncement - the "naming of names" that turned out to be - hmm, rather disappointing to his fans, to say the least.

And, as per usual, GG is proven to have played a bit fast and loose with the truth. Perhaps more than a few people have noticed that trend, as well.

As I said, just an observation.

[KoKo]

153. You've missed alot. Three articles in DU/GD linked to the Salon Article

which features the "Intercept" post and that it's by Glen and his Co-Author, Murtaza Hussain with links to "Intercept" along with Democracy Now's Interview. And three Articles posted in DU/GD with varying content snips of the original "Intercept" article with links to it's original site. DU V&MM has a post of the interview on Democracy Now with Murtaza Hussain and I personally posted the original "Intercept Article" and the Democracy Now Video here in DU PMRG and in a reply/comment on another thread talking about Khorasan and ISIS.

In case you missed this and want to watch it features interview with Glenn's Co-Author of the article Murtaza Hussain:

---------

Published on Sep 29, 2014
http://democracynow.org - As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,200+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET at http://democracynow.org.

Please consider supporting independent media by making a donation to Democracy Now! today: http://owl.li/ruJ5Q

?list=UUzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw

[NanceGreggs]

155. You've missed my point entirely ...

... and I apologize if I was unclear in my comments.

What I made note of was the fact that for well over a year after the Snowden story broke, any OP posted on DU about Greenwald - be it a new article he'd authored, a statement made by him, or any news about him - almost always had his name in the thread title .. and for obvious reasons. It was an attention-getter, especially for those who idolize the man. Any thread with Greenwald in the title was sure to be opened and read - by fans and detractors alike.

My observation last night was that the two OPs (that I saw, anyway) did not give any hint in the thread title that the OP was about Greenwald.

I just found it curious. But as I said, perhaps the Greenwald Brand isn't the draw it once was.

[KoKo]

159. Article is Co-Authored with Murtaza Hussain..Here's Amy Goodman's Interview with Hussain re Article

As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along

Published on Sep 29, 2014

http://democracynow.org - As the U.S. expands military operations in Syria, we look at the Khorasan group, the shadowy militant organization the Obama administration has invoked to help justify the strikes. One month ago, no one had heard of Khorasan, but now U.S. officials say it poses an imminent threat to the United States. As the strikes on Syria began, U.S. officials said Khorasan was "nearing the execution phase" of an attack on the United States or Europe, most likely an attempt to blow up a commercial plane in flight. We are joined by Murtaza Hussain of The Intercept, whose new article with Glenn Greenwald is "The Khorasan Group: Anatomy of a Fake Terror Threat to Justify Bombing Syria."

Democracy Now!, is an independent global news hour that airs weekdays on 1,200+ TV and radio stations Monday through Friday. Watch our livestream 8-9am ET at http://democracynow.org.

?list=UUzuqE7-t13O4NIDYJfakrhw

[NanceGreggs]

160. For the THIRD time ...

I am not talking about the article itself.

I'm talking about the fact that when these recent OPs ABOUT the article were posted on DU, they did not contain Greenwalds's name in the THREAD TITLE that everyone sees before choosing to open the thread.

In the past, such OPs would be posted with titles such as: "GREENWALD reveals new docs", or "GREENWALD's latest article says ...", or "GREENWALD replies to critics in interview", etc.

I only commented on it because it is a departure from what was the norm here for over a year, where anything connected with Greenwald included his name in the thread title, as it was an obvious draw to get people to open the thread and read it.

[KoKo]

161. What do YOU think about the article Itself....Then?

I've seen Glenn's name touted as if he's the only author. I just gave you a link showing he isn't the only author.

This was an Investigative Journalist Report with more than Glenn if you took the time to read.

You keep focusing that somehow posters of this article "concealed" Glenn's name.. and I just don't find that relevant. It's the TITLE that gets readers......Not the Reporter.

And, I just gave you a different article source with video.
here to counter what this interview by Amy Goodman on "Democracy Now" revealed.

I would like to read your counter and look forward to it.

Peace!

[NanceGreggs]

162. Where did I say ...

... the article was only authored by Greenwald? When I opened this thread, I clicked on the link, where the names of Greenwald AND his co-author are both prominently displayed.

Where did I say that posters who posted threads about the article were "concealing" Greenwald's name?

If it's the "title that gets readers" - the title of the article was not used in the thread title either. The thread title, as you can plainly see, is "You've been had - AGAIN" - which is not the title of the article.

Did I read it? Just the first few paragraphs that were posted in the text of this OP. Once I clicked on the link and saw Greenwald's name, I lost interest. I am not the least bit interested in GG's take on anything.

Had I known the OP was about Greenwald spew, I wouldn't have opened it. His name is not contained in the text of the OP either. I wonder if people posting OPs about GG have realized that his name in the thread title is likely to NOT get the attention of people who, like myself, think GG is an self-serving, bloviating idiot. Therefore, it is better not to advertize that that's what their OP is about.

[KoKo]

163. It's not about Greenwald...Did you Read the "Democracy Now" Link I gave you?

This was interview with Glen's Co-Author. As a Journalist ...surely you would take the time.

Peace!

[Scuba]

122. I don't fear ISIS, but I do fear the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson. Thanks for the thread.

[blackspade]

123. The MIC will have it's war....

No matter the occupant of the Oval Office.

[Alkene]

126. After years of psychopathic fear mongering and jingoism,

[merrily]

127. It's adorable someone thinks the USG is still looking for

legal justifications to attack Arab nations. That ship sailed years ago.





OT Whether Richard Engel is telling the truth or not about this, I don't trust him.

[Maedhros]

135. The article does not rely solely on the tweets of Richard Engel.

There are multiple sources cited.

[merrily]

157. I used OT to try to show that my post was an aside about Engel.

[Maedhros]

158. Missed that - sorry. [n/t]

[merrily]

165. No problem. Hard to show intent on a board.

I think it important because he is considered maybe the #1 expert on the Middle East in US journalism today. And I don't trust him.

[gcomeau]

128. Someone's been had... and guess what? It's you. -eom

[taotzu]

131. Living a Real Life Movie

This is Johnny Neumonic all over again.

[woo me with science]

132. Big MIC loves us.

We love Big MIC.

[loudsue]

133. Have I mentioned how much I appreciate Richard Engel?

He pretty much goes to the heart of issues.

[KoKo]

164. I think he tries...and is good. He even is quoted

in the new "Intercept Article" as "walking back his report on Khorasan" because he thinks that he jumped too quick to take the "Pentagon Fed Line" in his reporting.

I think there's some good stuff there...and what he has to deal with is overwhelming.

[Trillo]

154. The ME flareup occurred right during and after Ferguson.

I think it more likely a distraction from our homegrown terrorists.