CNN has a long article and several videos under the headline Could Syria strike back if United States, allies, attack?

Here is one  video  that is an interview with Bilal Saab, an expert on the Middle East.

The interviewer does try to get Bilal Saab to consider more than he has considered up to that point in the interview, but she fails to get him to consider one obvious possibility. Whatever may be rational or irrational for Assad to do in response to our attack, if it were in fact the Syrian rebels that made the first attack, what is rational for them to do would be quite different from what it would be rational for Assad to do. What they had the ability to do would be quite different from what Assad could do.

The experts might be quite right that Assad would just shrug off the pin-prick attack planned by President Obama. However, while Assad was shrugging, the Syrian rebels might just mount an even bigger chemical attack and pin it on Assad again.

If the Obama administration is failing to take this possibility into account, then the President could be impeached for criminal negligence if this scenario actually plays out.

The Onion has the article Let Me Explain Why Miley Cyrus’ VMA Performance Was Our Top Story This Morning.

Over the years, CNN.com has become a news website that many people turn to for top-notch reporting. Every day it is visited by millions of people, all of whom rely on “The Worldwide Leader in News”—that’s our slogan—for the most crucial, up-to-date information on current events. So, you may ask, why was this morning’s top story, a spot usually given to the most important foreign or domestic news of the day, headlined “Miley Cyrus Did What???” and accompanied by the subhead “Twerks, stuns at VMAs”?

It’s a good question. And the answer is pretty simple. It was an attempt to get you to click on CNN.com so that we could drive up our web traffic, which in turn would allow us to increase our advertising revenue.

This may be one of the best articles I have seen on The Onion recently.  It may even be filled with details that are technically quite correct.

The Boston Herald has the article Markey backs surgical strike in Syria, Warren hesitant. Here is what they had to say about Ed Markey for whom I campaigned and voted.

Markey proposed the use of cruise missiles and “other mechanisms” as alternatives.

“The statement to Assad is we are going to hit you and our allies stand with the world in saying that Assad must not use chemical weapons,” Markey said.

I went to the Markey’s Senate web page to leave the following message:

Please rethink your position on Syria.

For the sake of argument, say I buy your conclusion that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack and it is not an accident by the rebels, nor a false flag operation by them supported by our CIA (and the CIA is supplying trustworthy intelligence to the President).

If we do a limited, surgical strike with bombs (an oxymoron if there ever was one), what would be our next step if Assad decides to see our play and raise us one by doing a larger chemical attack?

Would we say, “Oops, I guess that didn’t work, but we do not want to get drawn in?”  Or would we escalate our retaliation?  Or is there a third possibility?

If there is a third possibility, why don’t we try that now before we drop any bombs?

To my readers, I ask you to send your own message to Senator Markey.

September 1, 2013

I just realized that I missed an important point.  Even if you think that it would be stupid for Assad to use chemical weapons again in response to our retaliation, consider another possibility.  If it really were the rebels responsible for the first attack because they were trying to draw us in, might they not escalate because our initial response was not as heavy as they wanted?

When you plane operations like the President is planning, you have to think of all the things that might happen.  I think it would be foolish to dismiss the actions I have brought up as, “Oh, that will never happen.”

The question we should be asking is, “Should Assad  suffer consequences even if he is not responsible for the chemical attack?”

Another question would be, “If the rebels did this by accident or in an effort to drag us in, should they be rewarded for killing what the President now claims is more than 1,000 people?”

If Obama should take action against Assad and it turns out Assad is not responsible for the chemical attack, Obama would teach two lessons.

1.  If you want to drag the US into a war, then perform a false flag operation that crosses the clear line that Obama has put before the world.
2. If you do not want to be bombed by the U.S.A., you’d better have nuclear weapons.

Should Obama take the chance of teaching these lessons to the world before he knows the facts?  Is this the kind of lessons we want our President teaching?

The Real News Network has a conversation between Chris Hedges and Paul Jay headlined Chris Hedges on Obama Decision to Attack Syria and “Give Congress a Voice”.

One thing to note is the mention of the story in my recent post EXCLUSIVE: Syrians In Ghouta Claim Saudi-Supplied Rebels Behind Chemical Attack. Paul Jay acknowledges the credentials of the reporter who reported this story.

The one part that this interview did not acknowledge was the issue of building a pipeline in Syria to give access to the European market to Saudi Arabia in competition with Russia. Arms sales may be a big part, but oil may be bigger. See my previous post Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern.

Seems like my scouring the web for news is a day ahead of The Real News Network, perhaps the oil issue will be coming soon to The Real News Network.

On a web site hosted by the UK Guardian, there is the article Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern: Massacres of civilians are being exploited for narrow geopolitical competition to control Mideast oil, gas pipelines.

These strategic concerns, motivated by fear of expanding Iranian influence, impacted Syria primarily in relation to pipeline geopolitics. In 2009 – the same year former French foreign minister Dumas alleges the British began planning operations in Syria – Assad refused to sign a proposed agreement with Qatar that would run a pipeline from the latter’s North field, contiguous with Iran’s South Pars field, through Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria and on to Turkey, with a view to supply European markets – albeit crucially bypassing Russia. Assad’s rationale was “to protect the interests of [his] Russian ally, which is Europe’s top supplier of natural gas.”

Instead, the following year, Assad pursued negotiations for an alternative $10 billion pipeline plan with Iran, across Iraq to Syria, that would also potentially allow Iran to supply gas to Europe from its South Pars field shared with Qatar. The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for the project was signed in July 2012 – just as Syria’s civil war was spreading to Damascus and Aleppo – and earlier this year Iraq signed a framework agreement for construction of the gas pipelines.

The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline plan was a “direct slap in the face” to Qatar’s plans. No wonder Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, in a failed attempt to bribe Russia to switch sides, told President Vladmir Putin that “whatever regime comes after” Assad, it will be “completely” in Saudi Arabia’s hands and will “not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports”, according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

It would seem that contradictory self-serving Saudi and Qatari oil interests are pulling the strings of an equally self-serving oil-focused US policy in Syria, if not the wider region. It is this – the problem of establishing a pliable opposition which the US and its oil allies feel confident will play ball, pipeline-style, in a post-Assad Syria – that will determine the nature of any prospective intervention: not concern for Syrian life.

What is beyond doubt is that Assad is a war criminal whose government deserves to be overthrown. The question is by whom, and for what interests?

Who knew that if you dug deeply enough, you would find an oil motive for all of this? Perhaps the British Parliament that rejected calls for a strike against Syria didn’t get the memo explaining the real necessity.  I bet that John McCain and Lindsay Graham did get the memo or else had a hand in writing it.

As with all reports of what is going on, you don’t know who is telling the truth or any facsimile thereof. I guess you just pour all this stuff into the big cesspool of your mind, and see what stench emanates.