By
Lynn Stuter
September 24, 2013
NewsWithViews.com
On September 17, 2013, two individuals representing Fox News had the opportunity to sit down with Bashar el-Assad, President of Syria, for an interview. There was no restrictions placed on the questions that could be asked of el-Assad.
That interview, in its entirety, can be viewed here. The Fox News website also carries the interview but in five segments that make it difficult to watch in sequence.
The interview is well worth the time spent watching and listening. There were several interesting revelations made during this interview:
1. Bashar el-Assad, President of Syria, has never spoken with Obama. So, one might ask, how exactly was that "red line" comment delivered by Obama to Bashar el-Assad on August 20, 2012? For someone who touts diplomacy and the need for it, why has Obama made no effort to speak with Bashar el-Assad, in person?
2. According to the taped interview …
a. the UN Chemical Weapons team was in Damascus at the request of el-Assad to investigate a chemical attack that occurred earlier in 2013 and that el-Assad wanted investigated to learn who did it. That incident occurred in Aleppo Province and resulted in the deaths of civilians and Syrian soldiers.
b. the UN Chemical Weapons team got diverted from their original charge, in Syria, by the August 21, 2013 incident in Damascus.
c. it was Obama who wanted the UN Chemical Weapons team out of Syria after the August 21, 2013 incident.
d. el-Assad claims it was not his government that launched the chemical weapons attack and that Russian satellite information proves it.
Believe el-Assad or not, what he claims regarding why the UN Chemical Weapons team was in Damascus, on August 21, 2013, is easily verifiable. Many people have questioned why el-Assad would launch a chemical weapon attack when the UN Chemical Weapons teams was already in Damascus and so close to the area where the attack took place. One has to ask – who would benefit from that? If el-Assad wanted the incident in Aleppo Province, where Syrian soldiers died, investigated, why would he want the UN Chemical Weapons team diverted? Wouldn't that be strategically counter-productive to el-Assad's goals?
And the questions that the inquiring mind formulates from these revelations are …
1.
Why would Obama want the UN Chemical Weapons team diverted from their
original charge in Syria?
2. Why would Obama want the UN Chemical Weapons team
out of Syria after the August 21, 2013 incident?
3. Why the backpedaling, by Obama, after Secretary
of State John Kerry's "oops" on September
9, 2013?
All of this, put together, makes it appear that el-Assad is speaking the truth; that the August 21, 2013 incident was made to appear to be an act of the Syrian government, staged by the Syrian rebel forces being supported by Obama with arms and munitions, because Obama did not want the UN Chemical Weapons team investigating the incident in Aleppo Province for which the UN team was there. And one can only conclude that the reason Obama did not want that incident investigated is because he knew it would lead back to the United States.
The UN Chemical Weapon team report on the Damascus suburb chemical attack is interesting in the numbering found on the parts at the scene. Such would indicate the parts, at least, were manufactured in the United States, England, Germany or France. Have those parts been traced? If they have, that information is not being disclosed. Why not?
Whether we believe el-Assad or not, what we do know is that Obama has lied repeatedly; that Obama and the truth are concepts at opposite ends of the spectrum from each other. We also know that Obama's sudden and abrupt about-face, concerning the matter of chemical weapons used in Syria, is odd indeed. When citizens and Syrian soldiers died in what appeared to be a chemical weapon attack on March 19, 2013, in the Syrian province of Aleppo, Obama's response, over a month later, was lackluster at best. Considering his "red line" remark of August 20, 2012, considering his accusations of August 21, 2013 – within hours of the Damascus incident – that the Damascus chemical attack was carried out by the Syrian government, why was his response to the incident in Aleppo Province so lackluster unless he knew the incident had connections he did not want revealed? Looking at all of this, the truth, according to Obama, becomes suspect.
On August 27, 2013, my article on The Muslim Brotherhood Threat to America was published; the article outlined connections between Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Muslim Brotherhood, recently ousted as the ruling party in Egypt under Mohamad Morsi. There are questions about the funneling of $8 billion by Obama to the Muslim Brotherhood, supposedly confirmed by documents found after Morsi was deposed.
Huma Abedin, wife of disgraced former New York Representative Anthony Weiner, is not the only member or claimed member of the Muslim Brotherhood who has had access to the White House. Also having access, through their affiliation with Obama, are …
•
Arif
Alikhan, assistant secretary of Homeland Security for policy development;
• Mohammed
Elibiary, a member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council;
• Rashad
Hussain, Obama advisor; has worked in White House Counsel's Office;
is the U.S. special envoy to the Organization of the Islamic Conference;
• Salam
al-Marayati, Obama advisor; co-founder of the Muslim Public Affairs
Council (MPAC);
• Imam
Mohamed Magid, Obama's Sharia Czar; president of the Islamic Society
of North America (ISNA);
• Eboo
Patel, a member of Obama's Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood
Partnerships.
An Egyptian newspaper claims these men, with their ties to Obama, belong to the Muslim Brotherhood. Other sources, concerning this, can be found here and here.
It is an established fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has been and is currently instrumental in the financing of al Qaeda and the Syrian rebels. Their connection to Obama cannot be ignored, in light of his sudden and abrupt about-face concerning Syria.
Nor should the Muslim Brotherhood role in the Benghazi massacre and subsequent cover-up, by Obama and company, be ignored. While many Americans are aware that there is a connection between Benghazi and the Syrian rebels, what that connection is, is not yet clear. There are theories, nothing concrete. It appears Obama and company wants it to remain that way because they have something to hide. It seems, they have more than just the Benghazi massacre to hide.
Since the August 21, 2013 incident, John McCain caused a flap when he erroneously claimed that "Allahu Akbar" means nothing more than "thank God." Recently, yet another article appeared, outlining connections between John McCain, who has made his unconstitutional stance on Syria very apparent, and the Muslim Brotherhood. McCain's connections to the Muslim Brotherhood cannot be ignored in his zeal to kill yet more innocent Syrian men, women and children by lobbing missiles into Syria!
McCain, who ran against Obama in 2008, is also known for his recent op-ed piece that appeared in the Pravda newspaper; an op-ed that most Americans recognize as applying to the very governing body that McCain represents! The question of McCain's mental competence is certainly relevant, but such makes him no less dangerous to the United States and the American people.
Then there is John McCain's and John Kerry's quoting of Elizabeth O'Bagy on Syria, just days before O'Bagy was relieved of her paycheck at the Institute for the Study of War (ISW) for claiming she held a PhD from Georgetown University when she knew she did not. O'Bagy, writing under the auspices of the ISW, made no bones about her support for the Syrian rebels; which stance was supported by the ISW. Yet the ISW mission statement claims,
"We are committed to improving the nation’s ability to execute military operations and respond to emerging threats in order to achieve U.S. strategic objectives. ISW is a non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization."
Quite obviously, the constitutionality of the United States committing what would be an act of aggression against Syria was not part of the ISW equation! And what the U.S. "strategic objectives" might be, in Syria, isn't clear, either! What is clear is that Obama is supplying arms and munitions to Syrian rebels that will end up in the hands of the al Qaeda faction, al Nusra! There have been questions raised about other supplies, flowing into Syria from the United States, the supplying of which violates existing United States law.
| Subscribe to the NewsWithViews Daily News Alerts! |
What becomes very obvious, in all of this, is that the American people are not being told the truth – not by Obama and company or Congress; and the mainstream media, as the propaganda arm of the government, is typically out-to-lunch on the issue! Equally obvious is that Obama is doing just as he pleases, as usual, while Congress huffs and puffs, wrings their hands, and does nothing to hold him accountable!
If a private United States citizen can amass all of this information without the help of the mainstream media or any government official or agency, what does that say about the integrity of any of these individuals and organizations?
Click here to visit NewsWithViews.com home page.
� 2013 Lynn M. Stuter - All Rights Reserved
Share
This ArticleActivist and researcher, Stuter has spent the last fifteen years researching systems theory and systems philosophy with a particular emphasis on education as it pertains to achieving the sustainable global environment. She home schooled two daughters. She has worked with legislators, both state and federal, on issues pertaining to systems governance, the sustainable global environment and education reform. She networks nationwide with other researchers and a growing body of citizens concerned about the transformation of our nation from a Constitutional Republic to a participatory democracy. She has traveled the United States and lived overseas.
Web site: www.learn-usa.com
E-Mail: lmstuter@learn-usa.com�
