Barack Obama, if you ignore surface phenomena, is just another Neocon. This was apparent in his retention of Robert Gates at the Pentagon (I cannot bring myself to use the word “defense”) and appointment of Israeli citizen Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff when he took office. As a Democrat, he is effectively cloaked. He has allowed the NeoCon faction to move forward with their Post-9/11 agenda of aggressive war in the Middle East. He’s useful.
In today’s New York Times, there is an op-ed piece by Russian President Vladimir Putin. This is highly significant. The Times, which allowed (apparent) CIA mole Judith Miller front-page prominence during the agitprop campaign leading up to the Iraq war, has not had a change of course or heart. But it is a frontispiece behind which there is obviously a squabble going on. Otherwise, Putin would not have access to the pages of the venerable state organ. There is obviously not unanimity within the ruling class that the US should attack Syria.
I cannot overstate the significance of this move by the powers behind the Times. Imagine that Leonid Brezhnev were allowed op-ed space there to criticize the Johnson or Nixon Administration prosecution of the Vietnam War. It’s just not done!
That significance aside, the piece is worth reading, especially since it echos a warning that has gone around the world but has not been mentioned in US mainstream news, that the Syrian terrorists are planning a false-flag attack on Israel to give them and the US further cause for aggressive war.
Piece of Mindful 
Remember when I said nothing was going to happen? The lesson here is always take notes when I am typing.
LikeLike
I gotcha, and kudos on the insight. But unless the US was merely setting up the whole affair to judge responses and weaponry, they seriously wanted to attack the place. There were troop movements on the Turkish border three days leading up to the purported attack.
It ain’t over, IMHO. Well, IMO anyway.
LikeLike
Yeah its not ever really going to be over.
LikeLike
That’s a really good insight. I mentioned to someone at some time that this was no different than when the British had the empire and were kicking smaller countries around. Of course, the Brits say they always did it for the sake of the people in their colonies, that they gave of themselves and only wanted to do good, just like American sycophants now say we act only with good intentions. Nothing changes.
LikeLike