U.S. severs most contacts with Syria/Washington debate over 'regime change

[allemand]

U.S. severs most contacts with Syria, officials say/Washington debate reported over idea of 'regime change'

Farah Stockman, Thanassis Cambanis, Boston Globe
Tuesday, November 8, 2005

Washington -- The United States has cut off nearly all contact with the Syrian government as the Bush administration steps up a campaign to weaken and isolate President Bashar Assad's government, according to U.S. and Syrian officials.

The United States has halted high-level diplomatic meetings, limited military coordination on Syria's border with Iraq and ended dialogue with Syria's Finance Ministry on amending its banking laws to block terrorist financing. In recent months, as distrust between the two countries widened, the United States also declined a proposal from Syria to revive intelligence cooperation with Syria, according to Syria's ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, and a U.S. official. (...)

Some U.S. officials say privately that there is now an active debate about whether "regime change" should be a U.S. goal. Publicly, administration officials say that they want to see a change in behavior. (...)

"What we see in general is an administration that is categorically refusing to engage with Syria on any level," Moustapha said. "We see an administration that would really love to see another crisis in the Middle East, this time targeting Syria. ... Even before the Iraq war started, they had this grand vision for the Middle East."

More:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/08/MNGGAFKH4R1.DTL&feed=rss.news

[liberal N proud]

1. Any bets on when the attack is planned?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

4. How about when we plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq to about 90,000?....

...that will leave 70,000 troops to be used in any way the NeoCon Junta wants to use them...unless Congress develops much more of a backbone by that time.

[sofa king]

33. Soon, that's for sure.

The Iraqi Army is in the field now, doing only one thing: patrolling the western border with Syria. They're gonna watch our back while we send in one of Rummy's precious Stryker brigades, reinforced with a lot of tanks.

The IDF will be massed on the Golan Heights in order to distract Syrian forces, while spies and special operations units of various nationalities secretly set up in Lebanon. No need for Israeli blood to be shed, though, now that they have the Americans to do the heavy lifting on the Iraq side of Syria.

The 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Fort Lewis has been deploying to Iraq every other November (when reinforced with tanks and other units, it's called a Stryker Brigade Combat Team, or SBCT). Today, it's reported that they're going back, but not until next year. These guys are Rumsfeld's brainchild, and I'm sure he's eager to test them in their assigned role: highly mobile invasion.

I'll bet they step up their deployment to be there before it gets too hot. Call it in place by January, crossing the border in February, with conventional warfare hoped to be over by March.

[katty]

51. early '06

[Chicago Democrat]

55. One month prior to the 2006 elections...

or 2 months

[CottonBear]

2. Damn. Now the Chimp seems to be getting ready to invade Syria.

:( Didn't Bush render prisoners there to be tortured or did I just imagine that fact?

[niceypoo]

9. His reasons for hating syria are even less than his reasons for attacking

Iraq. More incompetence from the peanut gallery

[jsamuel]

3. "regime change" isn't a reason that the American people are willing to go

to war for...

So what will they tell us this time?

[liberal N proud]

5. Al Queda?

It works for many idiots

[wookie294]

8. From the article

"Syria's secular leaders, who are from a minority Alawite sect, consider al Qaeda and other Sunni fundamentalists dangerous political rivals for the Syrian populace, a majority of whom are Sunni."

[Eugene]

21. You are appealing to the facts. That didn't stop Bush in Iraq.

Saddam and the Baath Party were secular and
mortal enemies of the Islamists. BushCo pushed
the supposed al-Qaeda connection anyway.

This time the bogeyman is also Hezbollah.
To Bush's ignorant base, they are all Ay-rab
Jihadis collectively responsible for 9/11.

[wookie294]

29. Yes, but I think the American people will be more skeptical this time

The fact that Syria's leader hates al-Qaeda is more likely to be reported widely in the USA. People are more skeptical of Bush because of the Iraq blunder. Hell, perhaps I'm too optimistic as you suggest. lol. Nothing would surprise me a this point, so maybe you are correct!

[BlueManDude]

6. Will William Kristol lead the 101st Fighting Keyboards into battle?

Or will the entire army be provided by Blackwater?

[wordpix]

32. Good one, LOL

[cantstandbush]

50. Bending to the will of the PNACers. Rise up America!

Take your country back!

[wookie294]

7. The U.S. can't afford a war with Syria....

... unless we borrow more money from China and Japan and continue to become subservient to them like a good little spendthrift addicted to borrowing.

Besides, I'd bet there is no better alternative to Syria's Assad. He's not a religio-fascist like the pro-Iranian government that governs the Green Zone.

[MadisonProgressive]

11. Can we take out a super-sized credit card from MBNA?

[wookie294]

13. LOL

I once had an MBNA credit card. But your analogy is spot-on. We are pissing our sovereignty away with each borrowed dollar sent to Iraq and (maybe) Syria. The only way we can "transform" the Middle East is to kiss America GOODBYE.

[MadisonProgressive]

58. I think we may have already done so.

[tatertop]

40. Exactly what the neocons want. Borrow and spend...

war with Syria, war with Iran. It will all come true.

[MadisonProgressive]

10. This all seems vaguely familiar...

[Loonman]

12. Here we go again

However, their is no way an operation can be conducted. Not enough troops or money, anymore.

[UpInArms]

14. I am just sick

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm

Nuclear Posture Review
Submitted to Congress on 31 December 2001.
8 January 2002

excerpt:

SIZING THE NUCLEAR F0RCE (p. 16)

“In setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among the contingencies for which the United States must be prepared. Contingencies can be categorized as immediate, potential or unexpected."

“Immediate contingencies involve well-recognized current dangers… Current examples of immediate contingencies include an Iraqi attack on Israel or its neighbors, a North Korean attack on South Korea, or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan."

"Potential contingencies are plausible, but not immediate dangers. For example, the emergence of a new, hostile military coalition against the United States or its allies in which one or more members possesses WMD and the means of delivery is a potential contingency that could have major consequences for U.S. defense planning, including plans for nuclear forces.” (p. 16)

Unexpected contingencies are sudden and unpredicted security challenges," like the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Contemporary illustrations might include a sudden regime change by which an existing nuclear arsenal comes into the hands of a new, hostile leadership group, or an opponents surprise unveiling of WMD capabilities." Ibid.

'North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in immediate, potential, or unexpected contingencies. All have longstanding hostility toward the United States and its security partners; North Korea and Iraq in particular have been chronic military concerns. All sponsor or harbor terrorists, and all have active WMD and missile programs." Ibid

"Due to the combination of China's still developing strategic objectives and its ongoing modernization of its nuclear and non nuclear forces, China is a country that could be involved in an immediate or potential contingency." (p. 16-17)

"Russia maintains the most formidable nuclear forces, aside from the United States, and substantial, if less impressive, conventional capabilities. There now are, however, no ideological sources of conflict with Moscow, as there were during the Cold War. The United States seeks a more cooperative relationship with Russia and a move away from the balance-of-terror policy framework, which by definition is an expression of mutual distrust and hostility. As a. result, a contingency involving Russia, while plausible, is not expected." (p. 17)

(U) "Adjusting U.S. immediate nuclear force requirements in recognition of the changed relationship with Russia is a critical step away from the Cold War policy of mutual vulnerability and toward more cooperative relations.” (p. 17)

...more...

First Iraq, Then the World
February 28, 2003

The war on Iraq is but the first step in the plan. The global hegemony that is sought by the Bush administration is being laid out in steps broad and intricate. Small pieces of news float out at odd moments, laying the groundwork for the desensitization of the American population.

Was it just over a year ago that we were allowed to peek at Donald Rumsfeld's Nuclear Review Policy (NPR) that disclosed the targets of our future nuclear warheads? For those with a short memory, the list is as follows: Russia, China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya.

As we are now witnessing, they are not necessarily targeted in that order, but here we go first to Iraq.

...more...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/02/28_iraq.html

(edited to add link)

[wookie294]

15. Bush is already defeating America on the world stage

Our "enemies" can simply bide their time as America spends itself into a shit hole. We are destroying our country from within and smart people abroad know this, especially Bush's enemies.

[UpInArms]

17. something that needs to be understood

is that Rumsfailed is intent on nuclear war.

Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defence:
"What is victory? I say victory is persuading the American people and the rest of the world that this is not a quick matter that will be over in a month or a year or even 5 years. It is something we need to do so that we can continue to live in a world with powerful weapons and with people who are willing to use those powerful weapons. And we can do that. That would be a victory in my opinion." Dec. 2001

[wookie294]

19. That's Rumsfeld's message of defeat

A "long term" war in the Middle East will defeat America financially. We can't afford such a war. North Korea doesn't need to drop a nuke on the USA. Bush and Rumsfeld are already nuking America financially.

[UpInArms]

20. I understand that, but

these insane freaks of nature seem determine to be able to "play" with every weapon (including nukes) to satisfy their warmongering wet dreams.

I don't trust that there are any checks and balances anywhere in our gov that will stop them from doing the unthinkable.

[wookie294]

22. Yeah, I agree

I have always said Bush is the first president since Truman who is most likely to drop a nuclear bomb. I think it's very possible he would nuke Tehran or Damascus. He truly is a mad man. But nuking those cities would cause incredible riots all over the Middle East and ultimately work against America's interests.

[UpInArms]

24. your underlying presupposition is that *Co "cares" about the USoA

and jmho - the BFEE has absolutely no affinity for our country.

ultimately work against America's interests

Can you tell me anything that this maladministration has done in the interests of America?

[wookie294]

26. Excellent point

Scary.

[UpInArms]

30. yes, it is very scary.

:scared:

[jasmeel]

39. Along those lines-why would they care if the US was bankrupt?

* has borrowed more $ than any other pres-he doesn't care what happens to our economy. So-what is there to stop them from taking the most outrageous step and directly attacking Syria. According to Condi-they don't even have to ask congress!

[tatertop]

41. Does anyone here truly believe bush will not invade Syria?

Where have you been the past five years?

[coalition_unwilling]

52. Yes, of all the really grotesqueries from the past four years

the Bush administration's inability to understand the difference between "strategy" and "tactics" is simply mind-boggling. For instance, the U.S. won a tactical victory in Falluja one year ago but, as a result, suffered a strategic defeat in the middle east.

There are 1.3 billion Muslims in the world. If we were to "occupy" (or even merely bomb) Syria, the price of that tactical victory would be a strategic catastrophe that would make the consequences of the Iraq disaster look like a walk in the park by contrast. Same goes for Iran.

Or maybe the Bush administration's real strategy is to so denude the U.S. that it will be incapable of playing any meaningful role in world affairs for the next 100 years.

[leesa]

16. Has Israel told us when we start the next invasion?

[wordpix]

34. oh, yeah, like BushCo takes its orders from Israel, lol

[geckosfeet]

18. So thats what KKKarl Rove and Dick Tator are up to.

"as the Bush administration steps up a campaign to weaken and isolate President Bashar Assad's government, according to U.S. and Syrian officials."

They have taken a low profile lately but this sounds like their handiwork.

Is this the transformational state department that Condi Rice fondly speaks of?

[Javaman]

31. It appears as if this soon-to-be war is on the fast track, funny isn't it?

The screws are being tightened at the WH regarding rover and dickhead chaney, so they have to act fast to distract the American sheeple. Read todays Shallow throat. They are cornered and desperate and are willing to do anything it takes to knock anyone and everyone that is investigating them off balance.
the reasons for this war is even thinner than ones for Iraq.

Beware of the cornered wounded animal, they maybe dying but they still have enough left to make one last attempt for the balls.

[tatertop]

45. I think the wars on Syria and Iran are on schedule

Bush and Cheney will not go down over the treason.

Bush is doing what he would have done either way.

[VaYallaDawg]

23. Holy s**t, here we go again. n/t

[patdem]

25. I recall seing those poll numbers surge upwards when we attacked Iraq

gotta git behin the pretzledent durn time a war, doncha know! Could be an attempt to pull those sagging poll numbers up a notch or two, it may only take a couple hundred dead americans and untold thousands of Syrians to do it, but what the heck is a pretzledent to do? :grr:

[tatertop]

44. Why do you think he needs good poll numbers?

He already has all the power.

[MisterP]

56. to get the spineless, both in and out of D.C., behind him

and cement his power.
And because he's a limp chimp.

[tatertop]

60. none of that has ever mattered and it does not matter now

I don't understand why people cannot see that.

[BikeWriter]

27. Yep, we need a regime change!

[allemand]

28. RUMSFELD TELLS MOFAZ: WE'LL KICK ASSAD OUT

RUMSFELD TELLS MOFAZ: WE'LL KICK ASSAD OUT
Yedioth Ahronoth
Nov. 8, 2005 (Thanks to Timur Goksel)

The American administration is determined to punish Bashar Assad and remove him. This is what Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz heard from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld last Friday in Washington.

People who were at the meeting said Rumsfeld and his advisers blame Assad for letting terrorists cross the border into Iraq and help kill American soldiers. The Israeli side said it is better to let Assad stay, along the lines of better the devil you know. But people at the meeting said the Americans showed no interest in who would replace Assad, and their goal is to remove him from power, and used the word "devil" to describe him.

It was learned yesterday that Assad's brother Maher is not suspected of taking part in Hariri's murder, contrary to previous reports. Top Israeli intelligence sources say that the assessment is growing that Shawkat is the man who planned the murder alone with a group of close advisers, without informing the president.

More:
http://faculty-staff.ou.edu/L/Joshua.M.Landis-1/syriablog/2005/11/rumsfeld-tells-mofaz-well-kick-assad.htm

[wordpix]

35. another example of the "forward-thinking" BushCo policies, NOT

"The Israeli side said it is better to let Assad stay, along the lines of better the devil you know. But people at the meeting said the Americans showed no interest in who would replace Assad, and their goal is to remove him from power, and used the word "devil" to describe him."

[dmr]

36. Are they planning another MIHOP to 'jones' up the flag wavers

and pro-war 'mericans to justify this next insanity? It would be the only possilbe way to juice up the masses to support this crazed mal-administration.

This is frightening in so many ways, but as a mom whose son will turn 17 in a few months ...

Damn it! I can't even finish my last sentence ...

[tatertop]

42. They don't even need a MIHOP. They will just do it

They control EVERYTHING, including (especially) the vote.
We cannot impeach, cannot vote out, and cannot stop this war.
We can march march with our bloody feet.
This invasion is coming. This invasion will happen.

[Beam Me Up]

37. Can "We the People" petition the military to NOT follow the Commander in

Chief? After all, they're supposed to be in OUR service and the service of Congress under the Constitution, not Bush's private army, right? Has Congress given Bush permission to put our military in Syria or Iran? Just wondering.

[UpInArms]

38. I think the answers to your questions lie in this document

http://www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp?article_id=2686

excerpt:

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

[tatertop]

43. Thank you for posting that.

[NorthernSpy]

46. that act is unconstitutional

For the United States to launch war against another sovereign state, Congress must declare war. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that Congress may delegate this power to any other branch of government.

Our government is breaking the law.

[The Stranger]

48. The Act by Congress is voided by the President's fraud.

The President made intentional misrepresentations with the intent that such misrepresentations be relied upon, in seeking passage of the act. It is the product, therefore, of fraud, and void.

[Beam Me Up]

59. Ok. Fine. Well, then, the military can invade the White House?

Makes sense to me as I have no doubt they were behind the events of 9/11. No way in hell that could have happened without covert cooperation from very high levels of NSS.

[NorthernSpy]

47. Losing on one front? Open another front!

Why do I keep thinking about a little country named Cambodia?

:think:

[daleo]

49. Bush/Republican popularity is sinking

War has helped in the past, so he figures it will again. Seriously insane people are running the U.S. military right now.

[Tuesday_Morning]

53. PNAC considers Syria...

... low-hanging fruit.

[superconnected]

54. Haliburton, Bechtel and Carlyle subsidaries are probably drunk with joy.

....sounds like Billions. Bye, Bye Medicad. When he said he wouldn't change it, you knew he was lying.

Bet we're going to put troops there too!

*whiffs air* draft?

[allemand]

57. Annan, Bolton clash on Syrian cooperation with UN

By Irwin Arieff

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and U.S. Ambassador John Bolton clashed with one another on Tuesday over whether Syria was cooperating with the U.N. Security Council in implementing recent resolutions. (...)

Tuesday's verbal clash began when Annan, in Cairo for a meeting with Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit, told reporters Damascus "has had a good record" in implementing Security Council resolutions.

Bolton, asked in New York about Annan's statement, said Syria's performance in carrying out council resolutions had ranged from "very lacking" to "substantially lacking."

Asked whether Annan's words were helpful to the council, Bolton responded: "I think I will not comment on his comment."

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=6224822&cKey=1131491117000

[antonialee839]

61. Here we go. Condi-little break out the mushroom clouds!