I was banned from the Daily Kos because I persisted in this view, which they labeled a "Conspiracy Theory."
However, as the revolution in Syria goes into its third year and Obama continues to support the rebellion with words, and little else, it is becoming increasing clear to all which side of this struggle he is really on.
That being said, I would like to welcome the Wall St. Journal to the "lunatic fringe" because they also see that US imperialism, under the leadership of Barack Obama, is no friend of the revolution. Of course the WSJ article is riddled with factual and analytical errors, as to effectively pointed out by Scott Lucas at EAWorlView, not the least of which is the WSJ assertion that this is a new policy, it is not, or that it's "for Now." Its for always. The imperialists will always fear a people's victory.
In short, US policy is that this struggle, which has already killed about a hundred thousands lives and displaced millions more, should go on a while longer while it gets it ducks in a row and finds a "diplomatic solution."
U.S. Fears Syria Rebel Victory, for Now
Administration Belief That Islamists Would Prevail Has Driven Efforts to Boost Moderate Fighters
April 16, 2013, 8:29 p.m. ET
Senior Obama administration officials have caught some lawmakers and allies by surprise in recent weeks with an amended approach to Syria: They don't want an outright rebel military victory right now because they believe, in the words of one senior official, that the "good guys" may not come out on top.
Administration officials fear that with Islamists tied to al Qaeda increasingly dominating the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, too swift a rebel victory would undercut hopes for finding a diplomatic solution, according to current and former officials. It would also shatter national institutions along with what remains of civil order, these people say, increasing the danger that Syrian chemical weapons will be used or transferred to terrorists.
This assessment complicates the White House's long-standing push to see President Assad step from power. It also puts a spotlight on the U.S.'s cautious approach to helping the opposition, much to the frustration of U.S. allies including France and the U.K., which want to arm Syria's moderate rebels.
The result of this shift, these officials say, is the U.S. has sought a controlled increase in support to moderate rebel factions. President Barack Obama is expected as early as this week to authorize the provision of nonlethal military aid such as body armor and night-vision goggles to moderate fighters, though officials said Mr. Obama still opposes sending American arms and taking unilateral military action.
The administration goal, according to people briefed on the effort, is to provide enough aid to strengthen U.S.-vetted fighters without tipping the balance so far that Islamists who dominate rebel ranks will be able to overrun the regime and its institutions. More...
Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel made separate appearances before Congress today and talked about the Obama administration's contradictory Syria policy. One of the things that came out is that Obama is not asking the pentagon for recommendations on how to help the rebels defeat Assad. The NY Times reports:
The reason the pentagon isn't being asked for recommendations for regime change in Syria is because the White House really isn't interested in regime change in Syria. They want to keep the murderous bastard.
Top Obama Officials Differ on Syrian Rebels in Testimony to CongressBy MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: April 17, 2013
Senator Levin asked if President Obama had requested that the Pentagon recommend how to apply “any additional military pressure” on the government [of Assad]. To Mr. Levin’s surprise, they said he had not. “We’ve had national security staff meetings at which we’ve been asked to brief the options, but we haven’t been asked for a recommendation,” General Dempsey said.
“We’ve not been asked,” Mr. Hagel added. “As I said, I’ve not been asked by the president.”
Now even well known neocon Daniel Pipes is openly supporting the Assad Regime:
As usual, Daniel Pipes is lying. He was never neutral about the Syria revolution.
The Case for Supporting Assad16 April 2013
Analysts agree that “the erosion of the Syrian regime’s capabilities is accelerating,” that it continues to retreat step-by-step, making a rebel breakthrough and an Islamist victory increasingly likely. In response, I am changing my policy recommendation from neutrality to something that causes me, as a humanitarian and decades-long foe of the Assad dynasty, to pause before writing: Western governments should support the malign dictatorship of Bashar Assad. More...
Its near the end game, and these false supporters and being force to drop the mask is all.