The claims made by Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday have been reported by many media outlets. Virtually none though are challenging the claims made by Sec. Kerry to the nation. Claims that are false.

Kerry, gave prepared remarks on Monday, explaining why the Obama Administration believes they must intervene in Syria. Kerry referenced the use of chemical weapons calling the use “a moral obscenity”, “inexcusable” and “undeniable”.

“What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders, by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard it is inexcusable, and despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable.” said Sec. of State Kerry

The Secretary of State went on to say “I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts informed by conscience and guided by common sense.”

So to be clear, Sec. Kerry says that even though U.N. investigators had only been on the scene less than 24 hours, the Administration’s collective mind has been made up. Chemical weapons were used. What’s more, the use of those weapons, Kerry says can be traced back only to the Syrian government.

“Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead.”

As we reported yesterday, however the inference that only Syria possesses chemical weapons is flatly untrue. In May of this year, Turkish military seized 2kg of sarin from “rebel” fighters from al Nusra Front. As we have extensively reported, al Nusra is the largest, best funded and most organized opposition force to the Assad regime. On May 30, 2013 when Turkish security forces arrested those 12 members of al Nusra Front, they found not only the 2kgs of sarin but those authorities went on to say that the sarin was going to be used in a bomb.

In Secretary of State Kerry’s address on Monday, he pointed out that the “evidence” against the Syrian government included YouTube videos he had watched of the victims. Too bad while scanning YouTube for evidence Sec. Kerry didn’t do a simple Google search of the words “al Nusra Front sarin gas”. Had he done so, he would have known that his claims of only the Syrian government possessing chemical weapons is not only untrue but easily disproved.

That however, didn’t seem to be of much concern considering that no major media have pointed out this fact despite such incredible claims from the Secretary of State. Rather than simply repeat over and over the claims by Kerry to the American people, why aren’t media fact checking him?

More info...

• What The Media Isn’t Telling You About The Syrian Chemical Attack
• Breaking: U.S. Cruise Missiles Preparing To Strike Syria

This is contextual

President Obama announced this weekend that he has decided to use military force against Syria and would seek authorization from Congress when it returned from its August break. Every Member ought to vote against this reckless and immoral use of the US military. But even if every single Member and Senator votes for another war, it will not make this terrible idea any better because some sort of nod is given to the Constitution along the way.  Besides, the president made it clear that Congressional authorization is superfluous, asserting falsely that he has the authority to act on his own with or without Congress. That Congress allows itself to be treated as window dressing by the imperial president is just astonishing.

The President on Saturday claimed that the alleged chemical attack in Syria on August 21 presented "a serious danger to our national security." I disagree with the idea that every conflict, every dictator, and every insurgency everywhere in the world is somehow critical to our national security. That is the thinking of an empire, not a republic. It is the kind of thinking that this president shares with his predecessor and it is bankrupting us and destroying our liberties here at home. 

According to recent media reports, the military does not have enough money to attack Syria and would have to go to Congress for a supplemental appropriation to carry out the strikes. It seems our empire is at the end of its financial rope. The limited strikes that the president has called for in Syria would cost the US in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey wrote to Congress last month that just the training of Syrian rebels and "limited" missile and air strikes would cost "in the billions" of dollars. We should clearly understand what another war will do to the US economy, not to mention the effects of additional unknown costs such as a spike in fuel costs as oil skyrockets.

I agree that any chemical attack, particularly one that kills civilians, is horrible and horrendous. All deaths in war and violence are terrible and should be condemned. But why are a few hundred killed by chemical attack any worse or more deserving of US bombs than the 100,000 already killed in the conflict? Why do these few hundred allegedly killed by Assad count any more than the estimated 1,000 Christians in Syria killed by US allies on the other side? Why is it any worse to be killed by poison gas than to have your head chopped off by the US allied radical Islamists, as has happened to a number of Christian priests and bishops in Syria? 

For that matter, why are the few hundred civilians killed in Syria by a chemical weapon any worse than the 2000-3000 who have been killed by Obama's drone strikes in Pakistan? Does it really make a difference whether a civilian is killed by poison gas or by drone missile or dull knife?

In "The Sociology of Imperialism," Joseph Schumpeter wrote of the Roman Empire's suicidal interventionism:

"There was no corner of the known world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, then allies would be invented. When it was utterly impossible to contrive an interest - why, then it was the national honour that had been insulted."

Sadly, this sounds like a summary of Obama's speech over the weekend. We are rapidly headed for the same collapse as the Roman Empire if we continue down the president's war path. What we desperately need is an overwhelming Congressional rejection of the president's war authorization. Even a favorable vote, however, cannot change the fact that this is a self-destructive and immoral policy.

 Now Report of analysis of different samples available for general public. Analysis indicates the use of sarine, You can download the report
 


http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf