Featured Post

The white-Left Part 1: The two meanings of white

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

Did Dishonest Jill Stein change her Syria statement on the sly?

Green's Jill Stein first posts:
US should be working with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels. 
Then deletes this unconditional support for the murderous Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his allies that are currently doing this to Aleppo:
Without comment!

Even after all I've written critiquing Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's support for fascist dictators, this tweet from Patrick Strickland surprised me because its hard to imagine a worst position on Syria. It is a complete betrayal of the Syrian people, who have already paid such a high price to be rid of Assad. It promises much greater suffering in their future. It represents no solution to the Syrian refugee crisis because they will refuse to return to a Syria run by Assad. It blames the United States for all of their suffering and calls upon our government to collaborate with their mass murderers:
But when I went to the link to validate it, I couldn't find that quote at all. Instead I found this:
Jill Stein on Syria

Jill Stein made the following statement on Syria in a 9/15/16 interview with RealClearPolitics:

The situation in Syria is complicated and disastrous, with an all out civil war in Syria, and a proxy war among many powers seeking influence in the region. US pursuit of regime change in Libya and Iraq created the chaos that promotes power grabs by extremist militias. Many of the weapons we are sending into Syria to arm anti-government militias end up in the hands of ISIS. In Syria it’s extremely difficult to sort out this complicated web of resistance fighters, religious extremists and warlords with backing from regional and world powers.

The one thing that is clear is that US meddling in the Middle East is throwing fuel on the fire.

I call for principled collaboration in bringing a weapons embargo to the region, freezing the bank accounts of countries that continue to fund terrorist groups, promoting a ceasefire, and supporting inclusive peace talks. The region is extremely complicated.

The best thing we can do for Syria, the Middle East and the world is to de-escalate this conflict, and involve as many of the players as we can in that de-escalation.
This statement doesn't contain the phrase that was highlighted in the tweet. So why did the tweet link to it? Was somebody putting words into Jill Stein's mouth? Was someone trying to make her really terrible position on Syria even worst? Or laying a trap? Still Google search insisted it should be found on that page:

What is going on here? This only happens when a document has been changed and Google's cache still holds the original version. Then I found the original in Google's cache:
Stein Opposes Obama’s Troops on the Ground in Syria

Calls for Middle East Arms Embargo, and for US Allies to Stop aiding ISIS

November 2nd, Lexington, Massachusetts

Jill Stein, who is seeking the Green Party nomination for President, said today that she opposed President Obama’s recent decision to put American troops on the ground in Syria.

“After the catastrophic failure of regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, the last thing that the U.S. should be doing is trying to orchestrate regime change in Syria. To stop ISIS we should lean on our allies Saudi Arabia to cut off funding and for Turkey to close its border to jihadi militias. We should convince our allies to stop buying Isis oil on the black market. And we need to enact an arms embargo on the Middle East rather than effectively arming all sides,” noted Stein. It is estimated that the U.S. has supplied 80% percent of the weapons in the area.

“By establishing a weapons and ammunition embargo to the Middle East, we can effectively disarm ISIS. We should work to engage Russia to jointly sponsor this weapons embargo,” added Stein.

Stein said the US should be working with Syria, Russia, and Iran to restore all of Syria to control by the government rather than Jihadi rebels. Collaboration could lead to real success against ISIS. And it would stop the flow of refugees that is reaching crisis proportions in Europe.

Stein noted, “By putting U.S. troops on the ground, Obama has set up a tripwire for drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict. If U.S. personnel are embedded with Syrian rebels, and Russia bombs the rebels, then Russia could inadvertently kill Americans, creating a dangerous international incident. The US would have political cover to provide ground-to-air missiles to “protect American lives”. By destabilizing Syria, Obama opened the door to ISIS. Now he is forced into a policy that is doomed to failure. He is funding radical militias who are anti-democratic and unfriendly to the United States. And he is asking Americans to die to support those militias.”

Middle East expert Stephen Zunes points out that empirical studies have demonstrated repeatedly that international military interventions in cases of severe repression actually exacerbate violence in the short term and can only reduce violence in the longer term if the intervention is impartial or neutral. Foreign military interventions increase the duration of civil wars, making the conflicts bloodier, and the regional consequences more serious, than if there were no intervention. Such military intervention often triggers a “gloves off” mentality that dramatically escalates the violence on all sides.

As Medea Benjamin recently pointed out,
“If you look at the results of U.S. intervention, it’s been to take a relatively isolated place like Afghanistan, where there were extremists, and now spread them out to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Syria, Libya, northern Africa.”
So what she has done here is simply "disappeared" the original, probably because it was embarrassingly honest about her support for the murderous Assad regime, and replaced it with a much milder, shorter version. This could be seen as a positive change except for the fact that it has bee done unscrupulously. She has done these "1984" totalitarian "edits" on her website before. As I reported in How Jill Stein was for Brexit before her Orwellian attempt to say otherwise, which prompts this suggest: If you see something on Jill2016.org that you might want to return to, its not enough to bookmark it. She changes content without acknowledging the changes, so you had better take a screenshot as Patrick wisely did. That way you will be in a position to confront Jill Stein if she claims to never have posted something she later became embarrassed by and changed without notice.

Since she has zero chance of winning, we don't have to concern ourselves with the question of how would such an unethical person handle federal records. Would they still be just redacted, with embarrassing info whited out like now:

Or would be be filled with fabricated info in the spirit of Hitler's Germany or Stain's Russia?

My other recent posts relating to this unique election cycle:
Republican support for Green Party @DrJillStein is emerging
Why "Jill not Hill" is a pro-Trump slogan
Donald Trump can only win if Jill Stein stays in

Syria is the Paris Commune of the 21st Century!

Click here for a list of my other blogs on Syria


  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

  2. Just so you know what really happened so far in Syria, from a reporter who was actually on the ground in Syria: https://youtu.be/g1VNQGsiP8M

  3. Eva Bartlett is an Assad propagandist. She is heavily promoted by Assad's people, for example this link has been posted 2,180 times like this. She claims to be an independent journalist but her facebook page is adorned with Assad's flag and she is one of the founding members of the pro-Assad Syrian Solidarity Movement.

    1. Except for the fact that she isn't.

      How does the amount of time something has been posted matter? Anyone, even people who aren't so into the content, can post a link.

      Where is her Facebook page "adorned" with Assad's flag? I see one picture on the page itself, that is a closeup of what looks to be the flag of Syria painted on a steel shipping container, so if that is what you are talking about, I am not sure what your issue is, it is likely the established flag of a sovereign government and a nation, painted, on a shipping container. What would you rather see, the flag of al-Qaeda, ISIS, or al-Nusra?

      If you ever watched Eva Bartlett's many interviews, she doesn't "promote" Assad, she just tells it like it is.

      The Syria Solidarity Movement is for the Syrian people, they advocate the provision of humanitarian aid to displaced Syrians, even in the country, promote non-violence, anti-imperialism, and what is best for the Syrian people. It was started by people like Eva, many of which were on the ground in Syria and saw that the picture the US and UK like to paint of the situation in Syria is entirely ass-backwards. http://www.syriasolidaritymovement.org/about/origins-of-the-syria-solidarity-movement/

      Do you even know why we are in Syria in the first place? It's because Saudi Arabia wants a pipeline.

      The international organizations you hear about on the corporate media are not on the ground. Eva was on the ground in Syria multiple times.

      The White Helmets, who are allegedly neutral, were started in 2013 by a British security consultant and ex-military intelligence officer, and Eva can explain the rest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2XDUlHSDQM

      She just does not believe that the sovereign government in Syria should be overtaken by a bunch of reckless people that Saudi Arabia supports. The US ignored offers of a peaceful end to the Syrian conflict, including to have Assad step down, so clearly the US does not care about ending the conflict, or about Assad for that matter.

      A lot of the claims the corporate media and the US government are making about Assad sound eerily similar to the claims they made about Saddam Hussein, which were lies, and Iraq sure misses him. https://www.democracynow.org/2016/12/28/cia_interrogator_at_time_of_us

    2. White Helmets have save thousand of lives while the Assad Regime drops barrel bombs. You could care less about that so you will tarnish them any way they can. The White Helmets never claimed to be neutral between the people dropping the bombs and the people under them. Nobody can be. You just favor the people dropping the bombs. Frankly, you sound like an Assad apologist, just doing your job, showing up here to post as many of his propaganda links as possible. Your obsession with Saudi Arabia makes me think you are associated the Baathish security.

    3. The White Helmets are funded by the US and UK. How can they be neutral for the people of Syria?


      The barrel bombs and their effects are incredibly suspect. They are improvised, cheap, small bombs, and the "magnitude" of them always changes from report to report. I haven't heard any lower than 6.7, but I've heard as high as 8.0, and the 2011 Fukushima earthquake only had a 6.6 magnitude, the 2016 earthquake had a 6.9 magnitude. Newsflash, Syria does not look too much like Fukushima after either of the earthquakes, especially from what you would expect to be done with a lot of small bombs with a lot of magnitude.


      Who is reporting these things on CNN and elsewhere? These western based organizations, who don't have anyone (at least credible) on the ground in Syria.





      You're the only person I know who would dismiss Saudi Arabia's (also Turkey, and Qatar's) motives in this conflict so easily.

      Do you not know what happened after Prime Minister Mossadegh of Iran, Saddam Hussein of Iraq, and Muammar Gaddafi of Libya were ousted by the US and UK or with their military support?

      On that token, do you not remember the lies that the US have used to justify wars and the ousting of sovereign governments?

      For Vietnam, the Gulf of Tonkin/USS Maddox incident, for the Gulf War, the false Nayirah testimony, for Libya, the Viagra rape squads, and in Iraq, the weapons of mass destruction to justify the pending 2003 invasion?

      I would be extremely skeptical of all of these claims being made, when there are literally a lot of terrorist groups (with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey) running around in this conflict, with plans for pipelines.

      The bottom line is, the US and UK ignored Putin's offer to even have Assad step down, like I said before, so the US and UK do not care about Assad.

      It is just like those governments don't care about the Yemeni civilians being slaughtered by their ally Saudi Arabia, in fact they openly support the Saudi coalition, they even sent them weapons that they are using to kill those Yemeni civilians, who already lived in an incredibly poor country before the conflict.

    4. Clearly you are a tireless Assad supporter. You should care that the White Helmets are saving lives. You don't. You expect them to be neutral between the people being bombed and those doing the bombing? Right!

    5. Two can play this game, since clearly, you are a tireless House of Saud enabler.

      How would the White Helmets be neutral between the people being bombed, and those doing the bombing, when the US and UK is giving the White Helmets their funding, and the US is the military force that admittedly almost ran out of bombs to drop in Syria (bombs they would use to "accidentally" hit Syrian troops instead of ISIS militants)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBkn78q_t_Q