More War Lies? 'Anonymous Sources' Claim Assad About To Use Gas
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that anonymous US Administration sources have secret intelligence showing that Syrian President Assad has given the order to use chlorine gas in Idlib province. Does this sound a little like the "anonymous sources" and "secret intelligence" used to lie us into the 2003 Iraq war?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that anonymous US Administration sources have secret intelligence showing that Syrian President Assad has given the order to use chlorine gas in Idlib province. Does this sound a little like the "anonymous sources" and "secret intelligence" used to lie us into the 2003 Iraq war?
The Wall Street Journal is reporting that anonymous US Administration sources have secret intelligence showing that Syrian President Assad has given the order to use chlorine gas in Idlib province. Does this sound a little like the "anonymous sources" and "secret intelligence" used to lie us into the 2003 Iraq war?
Hello, everybody, and thank you for tuning into the Liberty Report.
With me today is Daniel McAdams, our co-host, Daniel.
Good to see you.
How are you this morning, Dr. Paul?
I am doing fine, except for our rain that we're having today.
Never ending.
Of course, we someday are going to get a really, really fancy studio, and we won't have to worry about the rain, but our tin roof sometimes hurt.
But I hope our message is more important than the tin roof.
That's right.
So we'll proceed with that.
But there was a report from the last night, Sunday night, late at night, Wall Street Journal, Rupert Murdoch's magazine, claiming that we have great concern about a gas attack.
We know there's going to be a gas attack, and we have to retaliate and be prepared.
Because in essence, and we mentioned this last week with Haley, you know, Mickey Haley.
Oh, we know who's going to do it.
They're already set the whole thing up and saying that Assad's going to do it.
Assad's going to gas his own people.
He did it twice already.
So the third time.
But, you know, I keep thinking that this seems to be so absurd from our point of view when you look at what's available to us as far as facts go.
And if you look at our history, if you look at the history of how we got into the Iraq war, you say, how could the American people believe this?
But that's all they hear.
You know, on all the TV stations, all the newspapers, all TVs, they keep telling them, you know, that they're going to attack.
And they set the stage where if you object, then you're some type of an un-American.
You don't believe in national defense.
And yet they're gearing up for this again.
And I keep thinking, this is just unbelievable that they'll buy into this again.
But as far as I'm concerned, they'd have a tough time convincing me, in spite of all the shortcomings of the Syrian government, that they're stupid enough to do this.
And yet it's discouraging to me to think that our leaders are stupid enough to think that all Americans are stupid enough to believe it.
So I hope we can sort this out a little bit and tell the American people that maybe we shouldn't be expanding this war, which is the great potential here in Syria.
And besides, you're an expert on this.
So you're going to tell me where does the administration get the authority to be on the verge of a major escalation?
Because what we're talking about, if they come up and there is gas and they don't check who did what, and we start bombing Russia and Iranian forces, you know, this is a big deal.
But I don't know whether they care about whether they have the authority or not.
I think they're, you know, all presidential administrations, you know, since World War II have assumed that they have the authority and the moral responsibility to protect the American people against these individuals who want to bomb us and kill us and invade us.
Yeah, and this is so, it so goes by the exact same page as the lead up to the Iraq war.
Wall Street Journal reports that anonymous administration sources have new secret intelligence that we can't see it, but trust us, Assad has approved the use of chlorine gas in Idlib.
He's given the go-ahead.
He's given the green light.
Go ahead, guys, use gas in Idlib.
We can't tell you how we got this info, but I think one of the quotes was, we have lots of quote-unquote information that they're about to do it.
And, you know, again, anonymous officials, you wonder who they are.
You know, Nikki Haley, John Bolton, who could it be, or one of their minions.
But, you know, it's sad to think of the American people falling for this kind of nonsense yet again.
The same kind of anonymous sources.
We can't tell you what they are, but the mobile chemical weapons labs that we heard about in Iraq, you know, over and over again.
It looks like there's going to be escalations because one report said that the president still may retaliate even if there is no gas attack.
He just wants to bomb something.
Yeah, we have to do something.
Now, the one reason why we should be more concerned about what's happening here is President Trump has been more consistent with this.
Right now, of course, things look better.
This weekend, things look better.
He said nice things about the North Koreans.
The North Koreans didn't show their intercontinental ballistic missiles.
And, you know, it looks like sensible people are talking to each other.
And if he can achieve this with a country like North Korea, but of course, we've talked about that and it's on again, off again.
But he's pretty consistent, you know, with Iran.
And this whole thing seems to be related as much to Iran as Assad.
But it's the combination of Saud and the war, the Saudi regime wanting to do away with the Iranians.
I think, and that's what seems to be lining up.
And this is why this one base is so important.
Even though it's Al-Qaeda, it's almost like we're bound to determine not to defeat al-Qaeda.
I mean, we're over, we've been, we, I wouldn't say we, but the anti-ISIS and the anti-Al Qaeda people include the Russians and to a degree us and the Syrians.
And, you know, they're not an international danger right now.
The only danger seems to be to the American government is that al-Qaeda is going to disappear and we won't have an excuse to be in there.
Yeah, that certainly seems to be the case.
You know, and, you know, on Friday, Trump did another flip-flop.
He remember, remember when he said we've got to get out of Syria, we have no business being there, we should get out, you know, next month or something?
And then his advisor is, oh, Mr. President.
So Friday he approved a new strategy in Syria, a strategy always is escalation.
2,000 soldiers will be stationed indefinitely in Syria, which is not our country.
We have no permission to be there.
We're not at war technically with Syria.
So, you know, on what legal basis is he going to put 2,000 troops there?
But you're right, you nail it on the head.
It's all about Iran.
It's all about Iran.
Yeah, he has been systematically designed to undermine their government.
He said it during the campaign, and he said he'd get out of the agreement, the nuclear agreement, and he did that.
And he put on more sanctions, punished the people, and they are suffering.
We talked about the sanctions and all the punishment that the Iranian people go through.
So he's been very consistent on that.
But it looks like he's determined to have some outright fighting with them.
I mean, if he goes through with this, you know, and actually starts bombing Russia and Syrian troops and Iranian troops.
I mean, that's to me is where this thing could get out of hand.
We always say that there's a lot of bomb bass and a lot of back and forth, and both sides do it, and nothing really comes of it.
But this could get out of hand because one statement said that Trump can be very, very angry if civilians are killed.
And I wonder if that happened on all the battles that went over there when we were doing the bombing.
No, no, no, it never happened.
But you know, even if we just look at this on the surface, these claims, it's so absurd on its face that I think if Americans just paused for a second before they swallowed the propaganda, they would just laugh and then they would be outraged because here is the final battle in Syria.
Assad has battled since 2011 against foreign-backed radical jihadists, ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc.
Here is the last stand.
He's about to have the final victory, the real last concentration of terrorists in his country.
And just now when the world is watching, he's been put on notice that we're all watching you, NATO's watching, Nikki Haley's watching, everyone's watching.
Just now when he's about to have the final military victory, he steps back and says, you know what, I think I want to use some more gas because that's the one thing that will have American Tomahawk missiles destroying my army and allowing al-Qaeda to live to fight another day.
I mean, it's so preposterous on its face to consider this, that he would do something like this, that it's just, I mean, I almost feel insulted that they think we're this dumb for the propaganda.
And, you know, we have multilateral agreements because if we had ever been under attack by the Soviets, then our allies would come to our rescue.
But those allies are available and they're cheering it on.
And, you know, both France and the United Kingdom right now are saying, you know, boy, we have to go at them.
These are bad guys.
We better be prepared.
And so they're gearing up.
Sure, they're really worried about America.
And, you know, like we're under attack.
If they were good allies, they would suggest that we mind our own business.
You know, maybe that would go a long way for peace and prosperity.
Well, look at Macron.
His numbers are way down in France.
He's extremely unpopular.
Theresa May has got her own problems in the UK with Brexit.
A lot of this has to do with deflecting attention from their domestic problems.
But the other thing about this use of chlorine gas, you remember they claimed that they used sarin last year and earlier this year in Duma, and it turns out that there was no sarin there.
But even if they, even if, as claimed, Assad used chlorine gas twice against his own people, obviously it had no military value, those two uses of the gas.
It did nothing to help him defeat the rebels in Duma and Ghouta.
It did nothing to, it had no military military purpose.
The only thing that it did was that it attracted U.S. missiles.
So why, even if he did it those two times, why would he say, you know what, that was a total waste of gas.
It didn't do anything.
Warning About Executive Branch Involvement00:08:46
But you know what?
I'm going to do it again.
For someone to do that, he would have to be literally insane.
And nothing, he may be an evil guy.
He may be as evil as they say he is.
But we've seen no evidence from his systematic war against terrorism.
There's no evidence that he's just literally insane.
Well, and if there's a declaration that there's a gas been released an hour from now, they're not going to have an investigation.
They're not going to.
And we had some technical problems shut down our live stream, but now we're back.
We're going to finish up a couple of points we want to make on the show.
Dr. Paul, you were talking about what would happen if there was allegations of a new attack.
One thing I know won't happen is a proper investigation or a pause and thinking about it because they've made up their mind.
They've already decided there's going to be one.
We know exactly who's going to do it, even if it implies that they have to be insane if they did do it, and that is the Syrian government and Assad.
He's not going to do it.
But they're going to immediately decide that it was, and this would be the excuse to accelerate, and that's where the great danger is.
And one of the reasons why I think there's great danger, not only that they might start, you know, not only the Syrian government that we're supposed to be there to help and get rid of ISIS, but Also, the Russians and the Iranians.
And so that's going to be dangerous.
But, you know, the Russians are more equipped now for a major conflict.
They must know that this is getting more serious.
They have a major naval force.
They always had naval vessels there.
And that's one of the legitimate reasons why they have a right to be there because they have a contract, they have an agreement, they have a base there.
That's a lot different than when we go marching in.
And we have a presence there.
We're even still worrying about Al-Tomf and having a place there that might be involved with Iran as well.
So they know this is coming, but with this naval buildup, we have ships all over the place and we have missiles all over the place.
But this whole thing looks like it's a buildup and that Assad is and that Assad may be anticipating this and the Russians are anticipating that maybe Trump is about ready to do a lot more than has happened so far.
And we put up on the Ron Paul Institute website a veterans intelligence professionals for sanity memo to the president.
They do this pretty often and they're always really accurate.
But they mentioned they were wondering if the president's been properly briefed by his people.
And they make a very good point that the Russians are really not sure who's in charge in the U.S. because President Trump will say something and then his national security team will do something completely differently.
So that uncertainty is actually quite dangerous when you're talking about nuclear weapons.
And the Wall Street Journal article, as you suggested, also pointed out that there is consideration as to whether the U.S. will hit Russian and Iranian forces.
And with that kind of buildup, with that kind of naval buildup off the coast of Syria, if the U.S. starts shooting at Russians, knowingly shooting at Russians, there's going to be some U.S. ships sunk, I think.
They're not going to take this lying down.
Yes, it's just one of those things that it seems like it's impossible for our administrations, not just the current one, to extricate themselves.
You know, once they get involved, they have to save face.
You know, we're here to do that.
But it's the misinformation, disinformation, and practically lying of why we're there.
You know, this whole thing, 99% of the American people believe, boy, this is just great.
You know, Obama, he didn't do a good job.
He didn't get rid of him.
But now we've been in here this last year and a half.
We've gotten rid of al-Qaeda and never looking at the fact that, yes, Al-Qaeda has been defeated, but in spite of us.
And here we are in this major climactic battle where we're on the wrong side.
And it could explode.
And yet, there's a determination that there's one guilty party, and that is Russia.
Russia has to be blamed for everything.
So another example that I use for bipartisanship, you know, it's very bipartisan to bash Russia.
You know, have you noticed it's not that Obama was an enemy and now they're friends and this sort of thing.
It's been consistent that they have to have to bash Russia and yet they argue a little bit about that, but this is bipartisan.
Nobody's going to say, well, Trump shouldn't respond because the Russians did it.
That is the problem.
Maybe we'll wake up a few souls.
There's a few other people on the internet that still get their message out and it just doesn't make sense on what they're doing.
And let's have more confidence and encourage the people to think for themselves and at least look at what's happening.
Most people aren't so much against what we're saying.
Most Americans are probably a little bit uninformed and apathetic about the whole thing.
They don't realize probably what the danger could be, so they go along with it.
Yeah, that's true.
And I would just say that Dr. Paul hit the nail on the head earlier in this program when he said, there is no authorization.
President Trump has no authority to start bombing Assad, to start bombing Russia, to start bombing Iran.
He has no authority.
If you like Trump or if you dislike Trump, you should be concerned with the president that's using this war authority to do something that very, very easily could escalate beyond anything we could imagine.
We've said this before, but again, it looks like we're on the verge of such a thing.
If there's ever a time that you called your congressman and told him or her that the president does not have the authorization, you need to challenge the president.
You need to make it very clear to the president he is not to send off bombs into Syria on his own whim.
So we need to really get together and let our congressmen know about this.
Dr. Paul?
And you know, this sounds like a complicated, unusual point that we're talking about.
But what we're talking about is a basic fundamental of why we had a revolution.
One of the major reasons that we had a revolution and we wrote a constitution that said the executive branch of government does not have the responsibility morally or constitutionally to start war.
They don't have this authority.
And yet when you look at it, since World War II, they've never used it.
Even before that, it was sort of superficial, but technically they went along with it, you know, and went through the practice of making a declaration.
But since then, it has been assumed that the American executive branch, our government, has this responsibility to protect us from all evil, all threats, and not participate much with the Congress.
And this to me is the major problem.
Just think of what would have happened if all the fighting that we have been doing and all the bombing and wars that we have been involved in since 1945 had been canceled out unless we had a declaration of war.
I keep thinking of how much better off we would be and how much better off the world would be.
And that's not complicated.
First off, it's just obeying the Constitution, have people who take seriously their oath of office.
And this would be a major step in the right direction.
The founders tried to protect us from this kind of constant war, and yet we have not done a very good job following up with this.
So maybe this is a good opportunity to make this point and warn the American people that we shouldn't allow the executive branch or any part of our government to go along with this.
Unfortunately, even when it gets to the courts, the courts have been not sympathetic with this viewpoint.
They defer to the executive branch.
And the worst group is the Congress, the worst branch of government.
They have deferred for so often to the executive branch.
And when the executive branch goes and gets us involved in all these wars, the Congress won't say boo, but they'll provide all the money.
That would be the resort they would have.
Just deny them the fund if they disagree.
But they don't even do that.
But guess what?
All the branches of government are responsive to the American people.
And the political viewpoint of the American people is very important, although they're very slow and they're very apathetic.
And it took a long time for the American people to wake up and say that the Vietnam War has gone on too long.
American People's Delay00:00:27
And the Mideast War has been going on a long time.
And if you look at all that we've been there for 18 years, it's way too long.
It's time for the American people to say that we shouldn't be involved.
And on principle, constitutional principle, moral principle, practical reasons, we need to quit this foreign policy of interventionism.
I believe this is the way to move in the direction of peace and prosperity.
I want to thank everybody for tuning in today to the Liberty Report.