In an act that should be an example for the US Congress, the British parliament showed a measure of respect for international law and decent aversion to another set of lies by the US government by voting NO on a vote urging "action" on Syria.
But Mr. Obama’s efforts to marshal a unified international front for a short, punitive strike raised concerns about the evidence, reawakening British resentment over false assurances from the American and British governments that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
Even on Thursday, a British summary of intelligence could say only that it was “highly likely” Mr. Assad’s forces were responsible for the use of chemical weapons. And many questions were raised, both Thursday night and in the days before, about whether the American assurances could be taken at face value, whether the expected riposte would accomplish any serious strategic or policy aim, and whether it might set off a worse regional conflict.
And they shouldn't. Libya should stand as the latest example of so called "humanitarian intervention" that was exposed as regime change, a totally illegal aim under the UN charter and international law.
The second example should be the last time the US accused Bashir of using chemical weapons. That accusation was shown to be unfounded and that evidence pointed to the rebels as the most likely source of the chemical weapons.
While I'm at it let me take the opportunity to say SHAME on ABC World News tonight with Dianne Sawyer for acting as propaganda organs for the White House. Dianne Sawyer should be totally ashamed of herself for repeating the claims of the White House as if they were and verified facts, and to launch a smear campaign on Assad. That is not World News. That is World Propaganda. If that is they kind of reporting she and Martha Raddatz are going to do then I suggest they go [back] to GMA where they can do gossip and other light fluff fare.
Anyway back to England:
After the shocking defeat, Mr. Cameron was clear. “I strongly believe in the need for a tough response to the use of chemical weapons,” he said. “While the House has not passed a motion, it is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly.”
Now lets see if the so called representatives in Washington have the guts to do the same. If not let's see if the voting public has the guts to put the ones who support this foolishness out of office.
