Remember WHY Obama Didn’t Act on the Red Line Violation? Leaked Document Suggested Obama Greenlighted Chemical Weapon False Flag Attack

by Scott Creighton

Yesterday Trump hinted that Obama should have acted back in 2013 when, according to Trump, Assad violated the “red line” by using chemical weapons against civilians in Syria.

Trump and all sorts of raging war-mongers in the corporate media say Obama should have used that moment to launch a full scale war against Syria, killing God knows how many Syrian civilians and U.S. soldiers in the process.

They claim it was weakness on the part of Obama to fail to invade after the “red line” was crossed.

But it wasn’t weakness, it was self preservation.

President Obama couldn’t launch an invasion of Syria based on the chemical weapons attack that just happened to take place a week after he announced a chemical weapon attack against civilians would be the “red line” that would force him to act. He couldn’t because it was already clear that the Syrian’s didn’t launch the attack… Obama’s “moderates” did.

And then there was this:

There was no way in hell President Obama was going to launch a war against a country based on a chemical weapons attack that had ALREADY been exposed as a false flag he himself authorized.

It’s one thing for Bush and Cheney to lie 936 times in order to get a war of aggression started with Iraq. Lying is one thing.

Using chemical weapons against civilians of another country is something completely different.

The Daily Mail scrubbed that article from their website but unfortunately for them, the Wayback Machine exists and you can find it here.

The defense contractor, Britam Defence, sued the Daily Mail saying the email was forged and they won a measly 110k for the suit but what else do you expect them to do?

Whether or not the document was authentic is almost beside the point. The fact is, Obama made his announcement one day and not soon after, Assad is supposed to have done the very thing that promised to bring the wrath of the U.S. military down on his head. How much sense does that make?

It was a false flag attack and Obama, after the supposed leak of the email between contractors saying too much online, worried that it would be way too easy for historians to track back the cause of the conflict to his administration. So he pulled back from his threat.

The Russians had already exposed the attack as coming from the “moderate” terrorists. The alternative media (myself included) had already exposed it as a false flag. The jig was up and Obama wasn’t about to go down in history as a president who launched chemical weapons at civilians to start a war. Especially if that war could have escalated to include Iran and possibly even Russia.

Obama wanted no part of that legacy, so he backed off.

Please help keep AE up and running if you can.

I could REALLY use the help right now

Thank you all so much

(For my mailing address, please email me at


16 Responses

  1. Trump is an ego-maniac that needs constant praise–like a junkie needs his fix–to survive and he hasn’t been getting any love from the press, but if he uses Obama’s plan of sending in 600 cruise missiles into Syria, the MSM will be heaping praise on him.

    Like the true con artist he is, the American ‘marks’ bought his song and dance about ending these Wars for Wall Street and Israel, now that the deal–his election–is secured, time to pull back the curtain and show the bumpkins what they really bought.

    • It was the same in ancient Rome. Power was a function of wealth, but to fully win the hearts and minds of the masses, an oligarch had to start a new war and have a military victory. Often an oligarch’s “victory” meant slaughtering foreigners who surrendered, or who offered no resistance. Today’s terms for such innocent victims are “collateral damage” and “human shields” — or simply “ISIS.”

      • But this is not Rome. Trump won the votes of Independents and Democrats who were opposed to HC’s constant calls to war. If he now follows up what is clearly a false flag event with an attack on Syria, he will lose them permanently. And he will not just lose them, they are very likely to join in the Dem’s call for his Impeachment. That call today is pretty much ignored but if he invades, I believe it will be game over. He needs to deliver on his promises or he will not last 4 years or even 2.

        • Some people (like me) always object to imperialist wars. Statistically speaking, however, no U.S. president ever lost popularity by starting a new war. On the contrary, presidents have often jump-started their popularity by starting wars. I regard imperialist war as evil, but most Americans regard war as entertaining, like football. Most Americans like Hollywood movies such as “Saving Private Ryan. They like first-person-shooter video games. They like “solutions” that can be summed up with, “Bomb them!” Both Democrats and Republicans are warmongers. War is at the core of American culture, politics, and economics, as it was with ancient Rome. Regarding Trump, people who praise him are as much fools as people who praised Hillary. Both are neoliberals.

          • Maybe the masses will accept yet another war, but what I am seeing on sites from Zero Hedge to the Daily Mail is one many-voiced long loud scream of NO on the idea of escalating in Syria. We will see:)

            • there is a big trend on Twitter right now #SyrianHoax. Lots of people opposing this psyop as a means to justify war against Syria. Lots. Tillerson is meeting with Lavrov and probably Putin tomorrow.

    • And sadly, he’s not even that good of a con artist.

  2. COUNTERPUNCH PLUNGES TO A NEW LOW – Counterpunch’s managing editor is a classic fake leftist (i.e. a neoliberal in progressive clothing). For him, if you say the (alleged) Syrian “gas attack” was anything other than an assault by an evil “dictator,” then yours is the “petty cry” of the “conspiracy-minded left.” He does not know who perpetrated the (alleged) “gas attack,” but he calls it a “war crime” (as though the Empire’s proxy war is not a war crime). He claims to oppose the Empire’s war, yet he supports the Empires lies that “justify” war. He says that exposing the Empire’s lies is naught but “hollow conspiracy efforts” that “have led to the perpetual decline of the left.”

    • I website that bills itself as “fearless muckraking” allows no comments? oh that’s fearless alright

      • The “fearless muckrackers” include such luminaries as lewd sexologists with glorified columns Susan Block and some man with the last name Rosenbaum, “anarchists” and washed-up hippies who may or not be genuine (with some questionable utopian-sounding ideas), along with Ron Paul and some fish-out-of-water libertarians. When it read it fervently in my high school days, one article would feel illuminating, but the next one would cause me to face palm.

    • notice he quotes bellingscat as a source for his proof? bellingscat is a notorious Russiaphobe. Has been busted fabricating anti-Russia propaganda on everything MH-17 to fake photos of Russia “invading” Crimea.

    • the bellingscat article explaining the “evidence” of the attack starts off first with a video from al-Qaeda’s “White Helmets” and then it uses a video from the doctor, Shajul Islam, who lost his license because he was helping al Nusra torture journalists back in 2013.

      • CounterPunch has always been a witches’ brew of real independent journalism with cognitive infiltrators as flies in the ointment. Among the latter, they have constantly trotted out, for years, flavor-of-the-month pieces in support of agendas criticized by people like you, Robert Parry or Stephen Lendman before he went all fool on turkey. Do you recall Alexander Cockburn’s prepotent demeaning of 9/11 truthers in the mid 2000s? Cockburn and the Reagan-idolizing Paul Craig Roberts always seem to blindly latch onto anyone with token anti-war or anti-globalist rhetoric, no matter how unsavory.

  3. I will take the opposing position here, Scott. I think Obama’s function in regard to Syria was to foment, and then left the action for the next president. They did the same thing with Clinton–right? The Bush admin blamed Clinton in part, because he was soft on Al Qaeda and this led to 911. One president sets it up, the next president deals with it, and casts blame on his predecessor. Look what I have to do now because of Obama! Trump says.
    As well, that above article you offer, wouldn’t have meant much to most Americans at the time–anyone supporting Obama would have rejected the information as a lie, and anyone against Obama–unless they were very involved in alt media, would simply have gotten the majority of their information from mainstream US media. If they’d wanted to start something in Syria during Obama’s terms, they would have, but they held back. Democratic presidents focus on the social aspect, Republicans go to war.

    • my point isn’t that the majority of the population figured it out in real time… my point was, if he were to have launched a full scale war right then, the pretext of that war would ALWAYS be under scrutiny like the Gulf of Tonkin and the WMDs in Iraq. Clearly the official story couldn’t withstand such inspection and ultimately Obama would have gone down as a U.S. president to used chemical weapons to falsify justification for the launching of that war and as you and I know, one of the biggest concerns of Obama’s presidency, was his legacy as the first black president. I don’t think he wanted that to be his legacy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: