Obama Administration Won't Condemn
Killers of Syrian Security Officials
July 19, 2012 (EIRNS)—This release was issued today by the Lyndon LaRouche Political Action Committee.
Obama's Presidential press spokesman Jay Carney, as well as State Department Press Director Patrick Ventrell, came inches away from actually endorsing the terrorist murder of three leading military-intelligence officials of the Syrian government, over the last two days. Carney refused to condemn the killings—at the same time he expressed effusive sympathy for the Israeli victims of the terrorist attacks in Bulgaria, which happened the same day.
By contrast, even Britain and the European Union were able to muster the veneer of decency to condemn the terrorist bombings.
Asked at the July 18 White House briefing to condemn the bombing, Carney said:
"What I can say, Ben, is what we've said all along, which is that we do not believe that violence is the answer. And it is precisely because of the ongoing campaign by President Assad against his own people that we are seeing a situation that is getting worse and worse."
In other words, not the terrorists, but Assad (and implicitly his government) are to blame!
Carney then went on, at length, to virtually gloat that "I think the incident today makes clear that Assad is losing control, that violence is increasing rather than decreasing, and that all of our partners, internationally, need to come together and support a transition." He repeated over and over again that "Syria's future will not include Assad," and that there will be "greater violence and greater chaos," as long as he stays.
In the July 19 gaggle, under questioning about the Russia-China veto of the British UN resolution, which threatened force, Carney became even more threatening against Assad, saying:
"there is no doubt that Syria's future will not include Bashar al-Assad. His days in power are numbered. And it is a mistake to prop up that regime in its— as it comes to an end. It's clear from the events of recent days that the Assad regime is losing control."
Carney then pledged that the U.S. would "assist the opposition as it organizes itself and continues the work of preparing for a transition that is inevitable," but indicated total lack of U.S. support for any extension of the Annan plan.
At the State Department
The July 18 statements by Patrick Ventrell, director of the State Department Press Office, were even more obscene. Pressed by reporters as to whether the killing of the top Syrian Defense officials was "a good thing" or a "bad thing," Ventrell refused to answer. The following gives you a sense of the evasion — through which the murderous attitude rings clear.
QUESTION: So this is a bad thing?
MR. VENTRELL: Well, having said that, these are individuals who had perpetrated and were key architects of the extreme violence against the Syrian people.
QUESTION: So it's a good thing?
MR. VENTRELL: Again, we're still getting more information about what happened. This happened just today. We've seen some of the initial reports. We're getting reports from some of our contacts and others on the ground, but at this point—we're still looking for information at this point.
QUESTION: Well, yeah. But I want to know whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing.
MR. VENTRELL: The United States does not want to see further violence in Syria. What we want to see is a transition.
QUESTION: So that would suggest that it's a bad thing, but then you say come back and say that these people are responsible for the deaths of lots of innocent civilians, so that would suggest that you think it's a good thing.
MR. VENTRELL: Again, I'm—you're trying to put words in my mouth. I've characterized it —
QUESTION: No. I'm just trying figure out what the Administration thinks that the death of people—or the killings of people in positions like this—is a good thing or a bad thing for Syria.
MR. VENTRELL: We want a peaceful solution, Matt. We're focused on ending the bloodshed. It is the Assad regime, however, that, in slaughtering its own people, has created these chaotic conditions. They are losing control of Syria. It's clear that the situation is spiraling out of control. And what we've been trying to avoid all along is further chaos that spills over the borders that makes the situation worse. ...
QUESTION: I'll drop it after this. You just give me a yes or no answer. So [what] you're telling me is that the United States — the Administration—is not prepared to say that this is either a good thing or a bad thing. Is that correct, yes or no?
MR. VENTRELL: We're still looking, Matt, we're still looking and seeking further information about exactly what happened. We've seen the initial reports. It just happened a few hours ago. We don't want to see further bloodshed. We want to see a peaceful solution. And we're working with our partners up in New York on the diplomatic angle of this today.
Then, to add injury to insult, the Obama Administration—on the same day as the deadly bombing in Damascus—announced a new round of anti-Syria sanctions, particularly against individuals, including the Syrian cabinet official in charge of negotiations with the opposition!
Ominously, the EU also added new sanctions July 19, which, according to diplomats speaking to the Wall St. Journal, include ordering member states to search ships and planes suspected of carrying arms to the country!