Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama!

Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers! 

Obama, & Kerry's devious & dangerous contempt for our Constitution. See their depraved disregard for basic honesty! Obama & Kerry are brazen liars, lying to justify their wars. See Kerry making a bizarre excuse for Obama violating the War Powers Resolution when he continued the war on Libya without Congressional authorization by saying it was the fault of Congress for not authorizing Obama's war.

PayPal Donate to Advertise NoObamaWar.com Videos

Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria & Weapons Inspectors

The timing of the alleged chemical weapons attack was ODD  because "The area is controlled by the Jabhat al Nusra, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, but the majority of those killed were Alawites, the sect to which President Bashar al-Assad belongs. The incident on August 21 happened soon after a United Nations investigation team arrived in the Syrian capital to probe a chemical weapons attack that occurred in Aleppo in March. The Syrian government granted permission to the U.N. team, confident in the belief that its investigations  ... Logically, it would make very little sense for the Syrian government to employ chemical agents at such a time, particularly given the relative close proximity of the targeted towns [to the U.N. team]," Charles Lister, a security analyst with Jane's Defence Weekly, observed."
NOTE: "The rebels' fear that the U.N. investigating team would expose their complicity in the use of poison gas in Aleppo could have been another motivating factor for the latest accusations against the government forces." - FRONTLINE

"The statement said the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons team had examined Syrian soldiers injured in the March attack and said that no reaction to the more recent alleged chemical account should be considered without also considering that the rebels, too, have used chemical weapons.

"It is obvious that any objective investigation of the incident on Aug. 21 in East Ghouta is impossible without considering the circumstances of the March attack," the statement said. Ghouta is the area near Damascus where the Aug. 21 attack took place." - mcclatchydc.com
Russia releases 100-page report

"He questioned the "logic" of claims that his forces carried the August 21 attack." Assad said, "Supposing our army wishes to use weapons of mass destruction. Is it possible that it would do so in a zone where it is located and where (our) soldiers were wounded by these arms, as United Nations inspectors have noted during visits to hospitals where they were treated? Where is the logic?" Bashar-al-Assad-interview

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report. AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO ASSOCIATED PRESS

"This is the United Nations' decision and my decision. The mandate of this team is to determine the use of chemical weapons -- whether there was or not the use of chemical weapons. It's not to determine who has used against whom." - Syria Chemical Weapons Inspector Mandate NOT WHO! 

"Recall how - in one of most overlooked bad acts of the Obama administration - the House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway."  - Glenn Greenwald

"To make matters more complicated, Obama's aides made clear that the President's search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding. He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection." http://goo.gl/wEZFpL

Impeach Obama for Syria War Plan NOW! http://goo.gl/lUrPFH

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-president-obama-congress-faces-questions-war-powers-act/story?id=13642002

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/16/us/politics/16powers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jun/21/opinion/la-oe-schell-war-powers-20110621

U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain

So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that it was "undeniable," a chemical weapons attack had occurred, and that it was carried out by the Syrian military, U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders. Some have even talked about the possibility that rebels could have carried out the attack in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war. That suspicion was not included in the official intelligence report, according to the official who described the report. AP SOURCES: INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS NO 'SLAM DUNK' BY KIMBERLY DOZIER AND MATT APUZZO ASSOCIATED PRESS


Kerry's Bizarre Excuse for Obama Violating War Powers! 

This is illegal, threats of force are illegal and attacking is illegal.

Alan Grayson needs to start talking about how this is illegal, threats of force are illegal and attacking is illegal. And Obama has made it clear he will attack even without Congressional approval which would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution in addition to being a violating of international law.

"The House of Representatives actually voted, overwhelmingly, against authorizing the US war in Libya, and yet Obama simply ignored the vote and proceeded to prosecute the war anyway." - Obama, Congress and Syria, The president is celebrated for seeking a vote on his latest war even as his aides make clear it has no binding effect. His track record shows he doesn't care if Congress doesn't authorize his wars, he'll do it anyway. President Obama has made it crystal clear that even if Congress votes against authorization, he intends on attacking Syria anyway. The only way to protect ourselves it to impeach him now.

 And I don't know if Grayson points out that there is a pattern of dishonesty to make up excuses for using the military. Obama was brazenly dishonest to claim Libya wasn't hostilities. Bush has repeatedly claimed Saddam didn't allow the inspectors in.

 This whole thing is ridiculous, what would the Syria's government motive be for supposedly doing a chemical attack? To give the US a pretext to attack Syria? The Syrian government wouldn't want that. Meanwhile rebels would have everything to gain from it: To give the US a pretext to attack Syria. The rebels would want that. And there are reports that the rebels could have been responsible for the Sarin gas being released, either on purpose or by accident. We are expected to believe Obama but he lied about Libya, so we know he will lie to make up an excuse to attack a country using US weapons. And new weapons have to be purchased to replace the ones used.

 AP sources: Intelligence on weapons no 'slam dunk' "A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats — including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use, according to two intelligence officials and two more U.S. officials."

 U.S. case for strike on Syria has too many holes, critics say 

Rebels and local residents in Ghouta accuse Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan of providing chemical weapons to an al-Qaida linked rebel group.

John Kerry's Very Precise Death Toll: Where Does It Come From?

Dubious Intelligence and Iran Blackmail: How Israel is driving the US to war in Syria AIPAC to go all-out on Syria

 AIPAC on an island: ‘Politico’ report says Israel lobby alone in pushing for war in Syria

'NYT' Cuts References to AIPAC in Syria Debate

 "The reports coming out of Washington in the last 24 hours indicate that US President Barack Obama has resolved not just to degrade Syria’s chemical capabilities but also to take down Bashar Assad’s air force, destroy his air bases and knock out his ground-to-ground ballistic missiles, using giant B-52 bombers and B-2 stealth bombers. Some of the bombers will fly in directly from the US; others from the Al Udeid base in Qatar. F-22 Raptor fighter-bombers are also scheduled to take part in the US air offensive. Obama decided to expand the scope of the US operation for Assad’s use of chemical warfare against civilians on Aug. 21, when his experts advised him that these additional blows would dramatically diminish the Syrian ruler's military edge over rebel forces without toppling him." - US Air Force will also target Syria’s air force, ballistic missiles and sections of its air defenses DEBKAfile Special Report September 7, 2013, 8:41 AM

If the Syria government is so strong that even after a massive U.S. attack planned by Obama, it still wouldn't topple Assad, why the hell would he have supposedly resorted to using chemical weapons against the rebels? If Syria has such a military edge over the rebels, and they were supposedly willing to indiscriminately kill civilians, then why instead of a chemical attack didn't they simply use conventional weapons? Why would they use a weapons that Obama had declared was a "red line" when they had no need to and when they have a military edge over the rebels? It doesn't make sense that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons after UN inspectors arrived in Damascus and give Obama an excuse to attack Syria and the same person who wants you to buy that also tried to sell the idea that he had the right to attack Libya because he claimed it wasn't hostilities.


An Apparent Chemical Attack Strikes Damascus Just After UN Inspectors Arrive Chemical weapons allegedly left hundreds of Syrians dying and writhing in pain, but the attack's timing seems odd.

To the Editors at the Independent.co.uk

Dear Editors: 

Your article says "Samples from soil and victim's clothing provide independent confirmation that illegal weapon was used against civilians and opposition fighters" and "It means independent British confirmation that one of the cruellest of illegal weapons was unleashed against civilians and opposition fighters." But it only has this fact, "Samples collected from the clothes of a victim of the 21 August attack in Damascus that killed hundreds of men, women and children were tested positive"

So wouldn't a more accurate statement be that  civilians and opposition fighters were exposed to sarin nerve agent as opposed to it being "used against" and "unleashed' which conveys the idea that Syria;'s government used it and doesn't make clear to readers that we don't know that. We don't know who exposed them to this, if it was rebels by accident or on purpose. Because we know the UN was not mandated to find out who was behind it: http://youtu.be/A4xYOuksYvI

Your own article says "British confirmation that sarin was used, probably by Assad forces, will reinforce the case for missile strikes."  If it was "probably" by Assad forces then you don't know for sure so you shouldn't give an impression that it is a known fact at the top of the article. Assad forces were winning, what is the logical reason for them to possibly give a pretext for getting attacked?

Also, how would such a thing "reinforce the case for missile strikes" when such a thing is an illegal act? Using this as a pretext for striking them is a violation of international law if the UN Security Council doesn't authorize it. Have you ever clearly reported to your readers that Obama's plan to attack is illegal? Would you ever report that poor reporting reinforces the case for blowing up the building you work in? (That of course is an hypothetical example and is in no way a threat because poor reporting in no way reinforces a case for carrying out a criminal attack against your news organization.)

Obama is already in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter for making threats to use force against Syria. Have you ever clearly reported that to your readers that Obama's threats are illegal? "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

There is a pattern in the media of suppressing the unlawful nature of military actions by Western powers. There was a pattern of the media refusing to report that President Bush's plan to attack Iraq was illegal. And I have yet to see a major media outlet report that Bush's excuse, an excuse he as given several times, is a flat out lie. Bush claimed Saddam didn't allow the inspectors in! I think you should have be able to determine that is a falsehood: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni8hR-x2S9I&feature=share&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dQUb-sj-DxuDLdPtiMrKjZ4 See @ :22 for provable lie. Major media have played along with the lies used to sell and justify these illegal wars. 

And we see the same dishonestly from U.S. officials with regard to Syria: Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria & Weapons Inspectors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4c4YuAUByw&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dT2wtgz9sahhHa2lF1YsPiq

These are facts the people are not getting a fair chance to hear about. NoObamaWar.com

Sincerely,

Tom Murphy

Representative Press

Obama & Kerry Caught Misleading on Syria (playlist)

Impeach Obama for Syria War Plan NOW! (playlist)

NoObamaWar.com

NoObamaWar.com
No Obama War

Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria over Chemical Weapons, IT'S ILLEGAL

• 4,968 views
 
• 2 days ago

• CC

Message sent to TJ's tumbler and Youtube account about Syria

   It is almost guaranteed that more people will die if the US attacks Syria. I am disappointed that you are trying to sell what is in fact an illegal action. You give credit to Obama ignores his oath of office, declaring his contempt for the Constitution and international treaties such as The Kellogg-Briand Pact and the UN Charter. And from what I have seen, Syria isn't even in violation of a law, if you have info, I would like to see it.

   There is a very good chance rebels either did it on purpose or accidentally. The US has had this region in its crosshairs for years, it is naive to think this is a concern abut chemical weapons. What about the white phosphorus? where was US outrage over that? There are greater goals and obligations which have the larger objective to avoid large scale suffering. You are basically advocating for an illegal action that will make things worse when we have an obligation to pursue peaceful solutions with diplomacy and negotiations.

   I am surprised you think this is on the level even with Obama's open declaration of disregard for US and international law. Even with his arrogant performance where he wouldn't even answer questions in the Rose Garden. Even after his dishonestly claiming Libya didn't even amount to hostilities so he wasn't in violation of the War Powers Act! Obama has prolonged totally unnecessary wars and got the US into new illegal wars or actions.

    If you really are concerned about chemical weapons, advocating for an illegal act what will almost certainly cause more people to suffer from them INCLUDING THE POSSIBILITY OF AMERICANS, is irrational. Bombing Syria is illegal and EXTREMELY RISKY, a risk of expanding into a world war, that's a good reason we have the obligation not to start wars or join in them and an obligation to pursue peaceful avenues. Please respond to me and see my video. bit.ly/NoOamaWar

#NoObamaWar NO OBAMA WAR

No Obama War #NoObamaWar

No Obama War #NoObamaWar

SEE VIDEO: No Obama War! You Can Retweet #NoObamaWar bit.ly/NoObamaWar

---

Please retweet: https://twitter.com/RepPress/status/373383517763158016
bit.ly/NoObamaWar

Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria

Obama Has No Authority to Attack Syria over Chemical Weapons, IT'S ILLEGAL

Kerry Lacks Integrity and Credibility

John Kerry Lacks Integrity and Credibility

Syria Chemical Weapons

Syria Chemical Weapons: Experts Cast Doubt on Authenticit

Keep Humanitarian Imperialism Out of Syria

Talk Nation Radio: Jean Bricmont: Keep Humanitarian Imperialism Out of Syria

Syria OKs Chemical Weapons Inspection BUT Obama Rebuffs?!

Syria OKs Chemical Weapons Inspection BUT Obama Rebuffs?!

Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying | Let's Try Democracy

Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying | Let's Try Democracy
""U.S. prepares for possible retaliatory strike against Syria," announces a Los Angeles Times headline, even though Syria has not attacked the United States or any of its occupied territories or imperial forces and has no intention to do so." - Lying About Syria, and the Lying Liars Who Lie About the Lying By davidswanson - Posted on 25 August 2013

The media ignores rule of law again
Syria OKs Chemical Weapons Inspection BUT Obama Rebuffs?!

Zimmerman Trial & Trayvon Martin Media Manipulation

Zimmerman Trial & Trayvon Martin Media Manipulation Exposed >

PLEASE Listen

PLEASE Listen to These Words of Wisdom

WHAT is Trayvon Martin family's lawyer talking about?

WHAT is Trayvon Martin family's lawyer talking about? Zimmerman wasn't charged with that!

Zimmerman Martin Case: Ben's Answer Might Surprise You

Ben's Answer Might Surprise You, What Do You Think? (Zimmerman Martin Case)

Top Comment on FAKE! Viral Video of Drunk (Drunken) Woman (playlist)

Viral Video of Drunk South Korean Woman was Staged (playlist)

NBC Suppresses Protest Against Drones Killing Children (playlist)

This Cat Says, "It's not just Obama ..." (playlist)

Obama Violates the Fundamental Doctrine of the Constitution (playlist)

Spread Speech on NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden (playlist)

How to Set Your Subscriptions to Email You about New Uploads

Does anyone else have a problem viewing this video? (playlist)

Hypocrite of the Century comments (playlist)

Is Obama going for "Hypocrite of the Century Award?" asks Irish politici...

Here's the Answer to Your Question Michael (playlist)

On 9/11 Chief Callan Ordered Firemen to the Lobby (playlist)

Your Comments on "Because Muslims are dying ... (playlist)

Don't Deny Activism! Don't Undermine Activists! (playlist)

Anti-semite? This is Insane, Friedman's BIG LIE, Google+ INFO

Anti-semite? This is Insane, Friedman's BIG LIE, Google+ INFO

Because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day

Because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

Attacker's quote as it appeared in the Telegraph

“We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. Your people will never be safe. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day."

“We must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government, they don’t care about you."

"Do you think David Cameron is going to get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think your politicians are going to die? No, it’s going to be the average guy like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we, so you can all live in peace.”

Text in bold is what is often omitted in mainstream media's reporting. See link for source: Woolwich attack: terrorist proclaimed 'an eye for an eye' after attack

SEE VIDEO: Because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.

Obama confronted about his killer drone program

CODEPINK ACTIVIST MEDEA BENJAMIN SPEAKS OUT DURING PRESIDENT’S FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH AT NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY

Washington, DC--While President Obama was delivering remarks about American foreign policy pertaining to the administration's drone program and practices of indefinite detention at Guantanamo bay, CODEPINK Co-founder, Medea Benjamin, stood up and spoke out several times. She called on the President to use his power as Commander-In-Chief to close Guantanamo prison, release the 86 Guantanamo prisoners who have been cleared for release, and stop the killer drone program that is causing the deaths of innocent civilians, violating international law, and making us less safe here in America. The President responded to her comments by remarking, “the voice of that woman is worth paying attention to.”

 “Will you compensate the families of innocent victims?” is one of the questions Benjamin asked. See the full YouTube video here

 When asked why she spoke out during the President’s speech, Medea Benjamin responded, “We have been so disappointed with Obama; we expected him to to make serious changes like taking drones out of the hands of the CIA, stopping the signature strikes, apologizing to innocents who have been killed, families of the innocent, and announcing that he, as Commander-in-Chief, would close Guantanamo, so when he did not I felt compelled to speak out.”

 CODEPINK has launched an urgent call to save the lives of the prisoners on hunger strike in Guantanamo and has been staging actions across DC for the last several weeks. Over 1,200 people from around the world have joined a rolling hunger strike. Diane Wilson, a CODEPINK activists from Texas, has been on a water-only hunger strike since May 1st. CODEPINK is also organizing a delegation to Yemen in June to meet with drone victims and families of Guantanamo prisoners. CODEPINK also has launched an anti-drone campaign and more information about that can be found at droneswatch.org.

UPDATED "crooks and liars" comments

UPDATE: Moderator (for Crooks and Liars) 11 minutes ago − I deleted one of the comments from the person below because of a double post. None of your comments have been deleted." I replied: 2 minutes ago − OK, I had tried to post a comment that I saw apparently fail (it never did seem to complete since I hit post so that is why I assumed it did eventually post and got deleted) also I was having trouble using my RepPress account right after that (meaning I could't use it here), that is why I started using the RepresentativePress account. The rest of this sentence ("We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you" ) is: "until you leave us alone" There is clearly an agenda when reporters chop the sentence like that and leave off the end part. Also, the article then quotes the next sentence "Your people will never be safe." YET omits the very next one!: "The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day." Someone replied "who cares," I replied: "who cares"? So it is OK for the media to suppress key facts? It is OK for the media to edit off the end of a sentence which explains the motive? It's OK to suppress a sentence that makes it crystal clear what the reason was for the attack? How the hell am I "a piece of work"? I'm not the one withholding info from the public and misleading millions of people about why these attacks happen. You don't like that I exposed what was being suppressed in the linked website? Wouldn't it have been smarter to not even reply and let the powers that be continue with their agenda of sweeping the motives under the rug instead of antagonizing me, if suppression is your agenda too?

Chomsky on Syria PLUS Chelsea Stands Up Against the War!

Chomsky on Syria PLUS Chelsea Stands Up Against the War!

McCain has no shame

McCain has no shame: “They’re going to take revenge”

Libyan Door to Syrian Door to Iran

Libyan Door to Syrian Door to Iran

"In Syria, the United States has worked against peace and for violence.  That violence is not a justification for further and heightened violence.  And every member of an intelligence "community" that announces that Syria might possibly have used a chemical weapon should be doing community service for the people of Fallujah and Basra and Baghdad, not prodding the world's only stupor power into another genocide." - Libyan Door to Syrian Door to Iran | Let's Try Democracy

Word used for Boston Bombing Suspects

‪
Boston Police Commissioner's Word for Boston Bombing Suspects

•  "Suspects may have behaved unusually, left trace evidence at a crime scene, and so forth, but they have not been positively identified as the actors who committed the crime." wisegeek.com/what-is-a-suspect.htm 
•  "These actors, their willingness to pull their guns on the officers, it's disturbing," Mr. Huss said. "But our police performed admirably." post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-city/pittsburgh-police-officer-injured-in-overnight-shooting-683069/ 
•  "Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is calling on the Obama administration to crack down on bad actors on Wall Street." thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/273967-frank-calls-for-criminal-charges-on-wall-streets-bad-actors 
•  "the gender and status of the actor and victim were critical factors in law enforcement deciding whether or not to pursue a case." Law Enforcement, Communication and Community - Page 13 - Google Books Result

Boston Marathon Bombing Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

‪
‪Boston Bombing‬ Suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's throat injury doesn't mean he can't write.

Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects

Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects & Conspiracy Theories of "Inside Job" & "False Flag"

Boston Marathon Bombing False Flag Conspiracy

Boston Marathon Bombing False Flag Facebook Conspiracy They want us to believe that Inside Job secret agents thought it necessary to set up a Facebook Memorial page for the Boston Marathon Explosions Terrorist Attack before the attack?

War Propaganda Targeting North Korea

War Propaganda Targeting North Korea at Fevered Pitch

Operation Plan 5029

"Last year, the first year of Kim Jong Un’s leadership, a South Korean official was asked about the O Plan 5029 and why he was exercising this regime collapse scenario.  He said the death of Kim Jong Il makes the situation ripe to exercise precisely this kind of war plan.

It’s almost impossible for us in the United States to imagine Mexico and the historic foe of the U.S., Russia, conducting joint exercises that simulate an invasion of the United States and a foreign occupation of the United States.  That is precisely what North Korea has been enduring for several decades.” Behind the North Korean Crisis


North Korea is Reacting to US Aggression

 It is a propaganda coup that U.S. media has been able to portray North Korea as the "crazy saber rattler" when the fact is the United States had preplanned the massive military buildup and provocations going back to Nov. 2011. Obama's so called "Asian Pivot" is a plan to move a massive amour of military hardware over to the Pacific region. The U.S. has been conducting simulations of a first strike aimed at overthrowing the North Korean regime, Operation Plan 5029, "Last year, the first year of Kim Jong Un's leadership, a South Korean official was asked about the O Plan 5029 and why he was exercising this regime collapse scenario. He said the death of Kim Jong Il makes the situation ripe to exercise precisely this kind of war plan."

 "The basic theory is this: to provoke North Korea so much that it issues a self-defence warning, and use a part of that warning, via various media outlets to garner the public consensus for a justification of not only increased military spending on an already recession-hit budget, but to transport and set up an increasing stockpile of military hardware and personnel around East and Southeast Asia." - http://thesecretmap.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/north-korea-usa-and-the-war-on-your-minds/

"North Korea is being depicted as an irrational provocateur and aggressor in the escalation of threats and military maneuvers over the Korean Peninsula, and of course the regime's rhetoric is being used as proof of the intention to wage war. However the events occurring now can also be seen as a continuation of the Obama Administration's "Asian Pivot" strategy," http://www.tnp.no/norway/global/3653-north-korea-obama-and-his-asian-pivot

‪How They Sell War on North Korea‬

‪How They Sell War on North Korea‬

US blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia

US blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia motivated North Korea's Nuclear Tests

North Korea? Hey Hank, Sell Crazy Someplace Else

North Korea? Hey Hank, Sell Crazy Someplace Else, We're Fed Up With War Propaganda
ALSO SEE: ☛ GRAND DECEPTION BY US REVEALED "The people of the world have NOT BEEN TOLD the complete story about Korea and our government's role in fostering imbalance and conflict. Action must be taken by lawyers, community groups, peace activists and all citizens of the planet, to prevent the U.S. government from successfully generating a propaganda campaign to support aggression in North Korea. The American people have been subjected to a grand deception. There is too much at stake to get fooled again."

 "The DPRK [North Korea] has explained that in response to hostile actions by the US and the use of the Security Council to support hostile action by the US, the DPRK needs to develop its nuclear defense capability" ★ Read Ronda Hauben's articles on North Korea:

• US Financial Sanctions Against the DPRK As the Godfather of Nuclear Tests on Korean Peninsula
• US Proposed UN Security Council Resolution Against DPRK Can Only Increase Tension on the Korean Peninsula
• What Should be the Role of the UN Regarding the Hostile US Policy toward North Korea?

North Korea "has complained about the hostile acts of the US toward it. Instead of the Security Council inviting North Korea to explain its complaint, the Security Council has allowed the US to compile a set of punishments of North Korea  in the form of a proposed new security council resolution ...

To vote on such a resolution with no consideration of North Korea view of the problem that exists is a serious abuse of the obligations of the Security Council under the UN Charter. An example of the illegitimacy and duplicity of action taken by the US against North Korea  is described in the article, “Behind the Blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia: Is the policy aimed at targeting China as well as North Korea?”

North Korea  has made a convincing case that there is a long pattern of abuse by the US against its country and people and that it needs a means to defend itself."

"To put it more succinctly, the blog China Matters quotes David Ascher, who had been the coordinator for the Bush Administration working group on North Korea and a senior adviser in East Asian affairs in the State Department, in testimony to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade on April 18, 2007, explaining why Banco Delta was chosen to be blacklisted from the international banking system (9):

"Banco Delta was a symbolic target. We were trying to kill the chicken to scare the monkeys. And the monkeys were big Chinese banks doing business in North Korea...and we're not talking about tens of millions, we're talking hundreds of millions."

The purpose of the action against  the BDA (Banco Delta Asia) appears not only to have been to target North Korea and its access to the international banking system, but also to send a message to China.

Therefore it would appear that the action against BDA (Banco Delta Asia) is a carefully crafted political action and that it will be necessary that there be public understanding, discussion and debate about what is behind this action in order to find a way to have the policy that gave rise to the BDA (Banco Delta Asia) action changed.

Instead of the U.S. mainstream press carrying out the needed investigation about why BDA has been targeted and what is behind this action, there have been continual condemnations of North Korea." - 

Behind the Blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia Is the policy aimed at targeting China as well as North Korea? by Ronda Hauben

American Hostility

American Hostility: US Financial Sanctions against North Korea and the Nuclear Issue

 "The DPRK [North Korea] has explained that in response to hostile actions by the US and the use of the Security Council to support hostile action by the US, the DPRK needs to develop its nuclear defense capability. On February 12, 2013, the DPRK conducted its third nuclear test. The Security Council then issued Resolution 2094( S/Res/2094(2013)) on March 7 imposing additional sanctions on the DPRK, including a set of financial sanctions which are intended to reimpose substantial financial hardship on the DPRK. These financial sanctions are part of the focus of Resolution 2094.

 These sanctions, journalists were told, were negotiated by the US and China and then accepted by the other 13 members of the Security Council. This is a process similar to that which was used in creating Resolution 2087 punishing the DPRK for launching a satellite.

 There is prior experience with what the US puts forward as its use of financial sanctions against the DPRK, which has been called coercive diplomacy. It is significant to recognize that the imposition of such US financial sanctions against the DPRK preceded the first nuclear test undertaken by the DPRK. In September 2005, the US government used a little known provision of the US Patriot Act, Section 311 to blacklist a bank, the Banco Delta Asia, because the DPRK had $25 million of its funds in the bank. This resulted in the funds of this bank being frozen and the DPRK losing access to the funds in its account for two years. These financial sanctions were imposed in a such a manner that they represented a threat that any bank doing business with the DPRK would be vulnerable to similar sanctions, effectively denying the DPRK access to the international banking system. (6) Prior to the imposition of these financial sanctions against the DPRK by the US, the DPRK had not tested any nuclear device. And it was only after the DPRK carried out a nuclear test that the US State Department became willing to negotiate about ending these financial sanctions. So the US blacklisting of the Banco Delta Asia, an action taken by the US Treasury Department against the DPRK, was the Godfather of the DPRK’s determination to develop its nuclear capability."
US Financial Sanctions Against the DPRK As the Godfather of Nuclear Tests on Korean Peninsula by Ronda Hauben
http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2013/04/03/us-sanctions-against-dprk-as-godfather-nuclear-tests/

"... there are a number of examples of the Security Council acting in a way that intensifies or causes a conflict to become more serious. This is in direct contrast to the obligation of the Security Council according to the UN Charter. Such a failure on the part of the Security Council is particularly demonstrated by the treatment accorded the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) by the Security Council, with the exception of the two examples described in the article, “Two Precedents for UN Security Council Action to Calm Tension in the Korean Peninsula.”

The DPRK has complained about the hostile acts of the US toward it.(2) Instead of the Security Council inviting the DPRK to explain its complaint, the Security Council has allowed the US to compile a set of punishments of the DPRK in the form of a proposed new security council resolution tabled on March 5. The resolution is to be voted on on Thursday, March 7.

To vote on such a resolution with no consideration of the DPRK view of the problem that exists is a serious abuse of the obligations of the Security Council under the UN Charter. An example of the illegitimacy and duplicity of action taken by the US against the DPRK is described in the article, “Behind the Blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia: Is the policy aimed at targeting China as well as North Korea?”

US Proposed UN Security Council Resolution Against DPRK Can Only Increase Tension on the Korean Peninsula

by Ronda Hauben


 ALSO SEE: "Thanks to the consistent and magnanimous efforts exerted by the DPRK government, the DPRK-US joint statement was adopted between the two countries on June 11, 1993 and the DPRK-US Agreed Framework [AF] was adopted on October 21, 1994, under which both sides committed themselves to fundamentally settle the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

 Even when the US moves to scrap the AF and reduce the north-south joint declaration on denuclearization to a dead document reached its zenith after the Bush administration took office the DPRK proposed DPRK-US direct talks several times and strongly called for settling the nuclear issue by concluding a non-aggression treaty in the hope of preventing the process of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula from being derailed.

 As part of its principled and patient efforts the DPRK government advanced a new bold proposal for settling the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula at the DPRK-US talks held in Beijing in April last.

  Ever since the publication of the north-south joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula the US adopted it as its policy to systematically and completely ditch it and has stood in the way of its realization in every way.

 In July 1992, nearly 7 months after the publication of the joint declaration, the US instigated the International Atomic Energy Agency to kick up a racket of "special inspection", thus sparking a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

 Instead of withdrawing all types of nuclear weapons already stockpiled and deployed in South Korea, the US introduced many depleted uranium bombs, whose use is banned internationally, and deployed them for an actual war in February 1997.

 After the emergence of the Bush administration the US hostile policy toward the DPRK reached its zenith and the process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has been derailed in actuality.

 On June 6, 2001 Bush made public a "statement on North Korea policy" the keynote of which was North Korea's redoubled efforts to implement the Geneva Agreement on nuclear activities including those in the past, specified verification of missile development and cut down of conventional weapons.  

On January 30, 2002, Bush in the "state of the union address" singled out the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil", a clear proof of his administration's extremely hostile policy toward the DPRK.

 "Threat of North Korea's nukes and missile" claimed by the Bush administration from the outset of its office was a product of its policy to foster confrontation and war against the DPRK in a bid to torpedo the process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and suffocate the DPRK. The "report on nuclear posture" the US Defense Department worked out and submitted to Congress noted that the US forces can use nuclear weapons in case of "contingency" on the Korean Peninsula and the US should develop smaller nuclear weapons to be used for destroying underground facilities in the above-said case and to this end it should recoil from honoring the nuclear test ban treaty.(South Korean KBS, March 15, 2002).

 The Bush administration has systematically and completely torpedoed the process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. It finally adopted it as its policy to mount preemptive nuclear attacks on 7 countries including the DPRK in March 2002.

 This was a wanton violation of the basic spirit of the NPT which calls on the nuclear weapons states to refrain from threatening other countries with nukes or using them against other countries and creating emergency cases endangering the fundamental interests of non-nuclear states and exert all efforts to avert a nuclear war.

 The process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has thus been completely derailed because the US, the world's biggest possessor of nukes, scrapped the DPRK-US joint statement and the AF and adopted it as its policy to mount a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK, a non-nuclear state, in breach of the spirit of the NPT.

 The DPRK confirmed this when the special envoy of the US President visited Pyongyang early in October last. It keenly felt that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would only remain as a day dream unless the US drops its hostile policy toward the DPRK.

 The inter-Korean declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was thus reduced to a dead document due to the US vicious hostile policy to stifle the DPRK with nukes.

 The US incessantly staged north-targeted nuclear war exercises after turning South Korea into the biggest nuclear advance base in the Far East and a strategic nuclear weapons arsenal, thus wantonly violating the basic spirit of the joint declaration on denuclearization. The "9-Day War Scenario", "5-Day War Scenario", "Operation Plan 5027," "Operation Plan 5027-98," war plans worked out in the 1980s and 1990s, and the recently disclosed "Contingency Plan" all specified nuclear attacks on the DPRK.

 The successive US rulers and hawkish groups have been engrossed in blackmailing the DPRK with nukes on the basis of nuclear war scenarios to invade the north." - The Inter-Korean Declaration On Denuclearization Of The Korean Peninsula Was...Reduced To A Dead Document': DPRK Report on Nuclear Crisis
ALSO CLICK TO SEE: ☛ The people of the world have NOT BEEN TOLD the complete story about Korea

North Korea Interview: Abby Martin

North Korea Interview: Abby Martin talks to Eugene Puryear about U.S. Aggression
ALSO SEE: "Thanks to the consistent and magnanimous efforts exerted by the DPRK government, the DPRK-US joint statement was adopted between the two countries on June 11, 1993 and the DPRK-US Agreed Framework [AF] was adopted on October 21, 1994, under which both sides committed themselves to fundamentally settle the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula.

 Even when the US moves to scrap the AF and reduce the north-south joint declaration on denuclearization to a dead document reached its zenith after the Bush administration took office the DPRK proposed DPRK-US direct talks several times and strongly called for settling the nuclear issue by concluding a non-aggression treaty in the hope of preventing the process of denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula from being derailed.

 As part of its principled and patient efforts the DPRK government advanced a new bold proposal for settling the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula at the DPRK-US talks held in Beijing in April last.

  Ever since the publication of the north-south joint declaration on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula the US adopted it as its policy to systematically and completely ditch it and has stood in the way of its realization in every way.

 In July 1992, nearly 7 months after the publication of the joint declaration, the US instigated the International Atomic Energy Agency to kick up a racket of "special inspection", thus sparking a nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula.

 Instead of withdrawing all types of nuclear weapons already stockpiled and deployed in South Korea, the US introduced many depleted uranium bombs, whose use is banned internationally, and deployed them for an actual war in February 1997.

 After the emergence of the Bush administration the US hostile policy toward the DPRK reached its zenith and the process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has been derailed in actuality.

 On June 6, 2001 Bush made public a "statement on North Korea policy" the keynote of which was North Korea's redoubled efforts to implement the Geneva Agreement on nuclear activities including those in the past, specified verification of missile development and cut down of conventional weapons. 

On January 30, 2002, Bush in the "state of the union address" singled out the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil", a clear proof of his administration's extremely hostile policy toward the DPRK.

 "Threat of North Korea's nukes and missile" claimed by the Bush administration from the outset of its office was a product of its policy to foster confrontation and war against the DPRK in a bid to torpedo the process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula and suffocate the DPRK. The "report on nuclear posture" the US Defense Department worked out and submitted to Congress noted that the US forces can use nuclear weapons in case of "contingency" on the Korean Peninsula and the US should develop smaller nuclear weapons to be used for destroying underground facilities in the above-said case and to this end it should recoil from honoring the nuclear test ban treaty.(South Korean KBS, March 15, 2002).

 The Bush administration has systematically and completely torpedoed the process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula. It finally adopted it as its policy to mount preemptive nuclear attacks on 7 countries including the DPRK in March 2002.

 This was a wanton violation of the basic spirit of the NPT which calls on the nuclear weapons states to refrain from threatening other countries with nukes or using them against other countries and creating emergency cases endangering the fundamental interests of non-nuclear states and exert all efforts to avert a nuclear war.

 The process of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula has thus been completely derailed because the US, the world's biggest possessor of nukes, scrapped the DPRK-US joint statement and the AF and adopted it as its policy to mount a preemptive nuclear attack on the DPRK, a non-nuclear state, in breach of the spirit of the NPT.

 The DPRK confirmed this when the special envoy of the US President visited Pyongyang early in October last. It keenly felt that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula would only remain as a day dream unless the US drops its hostile policy toward the DPRK.

 The inter-Korean declaration on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula was thus reduced to a dead document due to the US vicious hostile policy to stifle the DPRK with nukes.

 The US incessantly staged north-targeted nuclear war exercises after turning South Korea into the biggest nuclear advance base in the Far East and a strategic nuclear weapons arsenal, thus wantonly violating the basic spirit of the joint declaration on denuclearization. The "9-Day War Scenario", "5-Day War Scenario", "Operation Plan 5027," "Operation Plan 5027-98," war plans worked out in the 1980s and 1990s, and the recently disclosed "Contingency Plan" all specified nuclear attacks on the DPRK.

 The successive US rulers and hawkish groups have been engrossed in blackmailing the DPRK with nukes on the basis of nuclear war scenarios to invade the north." - The Inter-Korean Declaration On Denuclearization Of The Korean Peninsula Was...Reduced To A Dead Document': DPRK Report on Nuclear Crisis

How much did B-2 flight cost?

Poking North Korea, why do you think it's wise?

Not April Fool's Joke

Not April Fool's Joke: "Amid Saber-Rattling From North" (as in "North Korea")