Media scoundrels march in lockstep. When America goes to war or plans one, they're supportive right or wrong.

Throughout months of conflict, they pilloried Assad. They did so unjustifiably. They turned truth on its head. They blame him for insurgent crimes. They do it repeatedly.

On August 30, Wall Street Journal editors headlined "The Chemical Evidence," saying:

"Kerry echoes Bush in making the case on WMD(s) in Syria. If (he) talked like this in 2004, he would have been president."

Clear evidence showed another stolen election. Gore won in 2000. Kerry won convincingly. They knew it. They stayed silent. Bush lost both times. He got eight years in office.

Kerry "laid out the Obama Administration's most complete case so far that Syria has used chemical weapons and why the world must respond," said Journal editors.

Bush and Blair "couldn't have said it better." He "made a persuasive case."

"The evidence of the large-scale Syrian attack using sarin gas on the Damascus suburbs on August 21 is substantial and from multiple, layered sources."

False! No evidence exists. What's cited is fake. It's fabricated. It's spurious. No hard facts support it. They don't exist. If they did, Kerry would have explained.

The Obama administration released a summary of alleged evidence. It was long on bluster. It was devoid of substance. There is none. Officials can't cite what they don't have.

According to Kerry, said Journal editors:

"(E)vidence includes knowledge about Syria's chemical stockpiles and their movement; testimony and symptoms from victims, medical personnel and journalists; physiological samples that showed the presence of sarin; and intelligence about the movement of Syrian troops before the attack, as well as the timing of rocket launches that presumably carried the chemical canisters."

It's meaningless. It explains nothing. It's fabricated. It was Kerry's second Colin Powell moment. It likely precedes shock and awe attacks.

So-called intercepted communications are spurious claims. They lack credibility. They irresponsibly point fingers the wrong way. Don't expect Journal editors to explain.

"Mr. Kerry and the Administration (made) a compelling case against the depredations of Bashar Assad and the need for a forceful world response," they said.

"What they haven't done is make a case that their military punishment will be enough to match the magnitude of the harm and threat they describe."

What Journal editors don't due is support rule of law principles. Might means right substitutes.

On August 30, Washington Post editors headlined "US must act against crimes against humanity," saying:

Obama "faces no easy options. (S)ome of his challenges ensue from his mistakes."

"(N)o country other than the United States can or will respond fittingly (to Syria's) crime against humanity."

"A line has been crossed; if there are no consequences, it will be crossed again."

"Someday US soldiers on a battlefield could be the victim of the resulting impunity."

"If the United States does not ensure that Syria faces consequences for crossing the line, no one will, and the US response should be strong enough to prevent Mr. Assad from committing further atrocities."

On Friday, Obama said: "A lot of people think something should be done, but nobody wants to do it."

According to WaPo editors," he's "right to conclude that, in such circumstances, the United States must."

Fact check

It bears repeating. No evidence links Syria to chemical weapons attacks any time throughout months of conflict. It doesn't exist.

It's pretext for lawless aggression. It's for regime change. It's about destroying Syrian sovereignty. It's replacing it with subservient pro-Western governance.

Syria is Washington's war. It was planned years ago. It's to isolate Iran. Its turn awaits. It's for regional dominance. It's for control of its valued oil and gas resources.

It's about waging permanent wars. They're against nonexistent enemies. Don't expect WaPo editors to explain.

Los Angeles Times editors urged "a measured approach," saying:

Washington signaled an attack is coming. It "won't inflict the damage necessary to drive President Bashar Assad from power."

"There is no guarantee that the sort of operation the administration is contemplating - the launching of cruise missiles from ships or submarines - will deter Assad from resorting to chemical warfare in the future."

There's "a reason why the administration decided it must act." Times editors didn't explain. They twisted things their way. They did so duplicitously. It wasn't the first time. It won't be the last.

They claim attacking Syria assures deterring further chemical weapons use. Failure to confront Assad encourages other countries to use them, they say.

America uses chemical, biological and radiological weapons in all its wars. Media scoundrels suppress it. So do LA Times editors.

Houston Chronicle (HC) editors headlined "Syria's sorrows," saying:

"Every self-respecting human being owes it to the causes of decency and justice to spend time looking closely at the photographs of Syrian children and adults murdered by chemical weapons."

"Those who approved and perpetrated these heinous acts must be brought to justice, and quickly. Every moment that passes offers fresh opportunities to repeat these horrible acts."

"Clearly, these are crimes against humanity. As such, they should be dealt with under the flag of the United Nations with the fullest participation of its membership."

"The United States should and must play a leading role."

"Assad and his henchmen must go. If that isn't accomplished, and soon, the cancer of Islamist radicalism will spread."

"That is unacceptable."

HC betrayed their readers. They pointed fingers the wrong way. They ignored a classic false flag attack. They blamed Assad for insurgent crimes.

They dismissed US involvement. They suppressed information about Washington's war. They're complicit in what's ongoing. They bear responsibility for what follows.

So do San Francisco Chronicle editors. They headlined "Explain the need to attack Syria," saying:

"Hundreds lie dead from sarin gas in Syria. The signs point to Bashar Assad's regime as culprit."

UN investigators haven't said whether toxic chemicals were used. They haven't named any. Blaming Assad is irresponsible. Clear evidence points fingers the other way.

"If the trail of evidence truly leads back to Assad's regime, it must learn in unmistakable terms that there is a steep price to pay for crossing these bounds of inhumanity."

"It must be led to the conclusion: 'It's just not worth it. A US attack on valued Syrian government and military targets is the best way to punctuate that point."

"But first things first: The president needs to connect the dots for the rest of us in a clear and convincing way."

Chronicle editors didn't explain. There's no way to do it. Nonexistent evidence lacks credibility. Fake proof substitutes.

Chicago Tribune editors headlined "Before the missiles fly against Syria," saying:

"Now is the time for sharing the best intel available on the use of chemical weapons and for reminding other governments - and American citizens - that doing nothing, or next to nothing, would invite even greater atrocities."

Tribune editors support lawless aggression. They want a clear case made for waging it.

So do New York Times editors. They tried having things both ways. They headlined "Absent on Syria."

On the one hand, they said Obama plans war "without legal justification and without the backing of two key institutions, Congress and the United Nations Security Council. Both have abdicated their roles in dealing with this crisis."

On the other, they duplicitously claimed "no doubt" Assad "was behind (the August 21 chemical) attack." Not a shred of credible proves it. Times editors didn't explain.

They pronounced Assad guilty by accusation. They blamed him throughout months of conflict for insurgent crimes. They did so unjustifiably.

They said Kerry and Obama "made a largely moral case for a retaliatory response." They turned rule of law principles on their head saying so.

They support attacking Syria. They want Obama doing it with international support.

On Saturday, he made the case for war. He did so duplicitously. He wants Syria attacked. He plans to do so. He'll seek congressional support.

At the same time, he claimed he "believe(s) (he has) the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization."

He has none whatever. He knows it. He didn't explain.

"We cannot and will not turn a blind eye to what happened in Damascus," he said. At issue is only when he'll order bombs away.

With or without congressional support, it's lawless. No nation may attack another except in self-defense. Syria threatens no one.

The Security Council alone decides on issues of war and peace. Circumventing it is criminal. It's standard US practice. It's about to happen again.

Obama wants another imperial trophy. Mass killing and destruction are small prices to pay.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

It airs Fridays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour