Seymour Hersh Alleges Obama Administration Lied on Syria Gas Attack
Source: The Wire
Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh has dropped yet another bombshell allegation: President Obama wasn't honest with the American people when he blamed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for a sarin-gas attack in that killed hundreds of civilians.
Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/seymour-hersh-alleges-obama-administration-lied-syria-gas-204437397.html
I wonder what this is all about?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Is usually right on in his work -- if he's saying this, I pay attention.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)That idiot has been saying for years that a US attack on Iran is imminent. Notice how he's been attacking the Obama admin since Iran and the US have been engaging in diplomacy?
He's pissed because he was wrong and he won't be able to sell as many books.
Hersh is all about the dolla dolla bill $$$$$$$$
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Hersh was correct during the Bush years and suddenly he's wrong now that it's O bullshitting? Mm hm.
George II
(67,782 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and the Sudan weren't a war?
What planet are you inhabiting?
George II
(67,782 posts)It's not true that the Obama administration manipulated intelligence about Syria's use of chemical weapons, and even if he did, my point was that he DIDN'T USE IT TO START A WAR!!!
Is that difficult for you to understand?
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)afraid not to--afraid that if he backed down from his "red line" he'd be seen as a wuss.
Response to Ace Acme (Reply #26)
Post removed
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)
olddad56
(5,732 posts)
karynnj
(59,504 posts)- so your argument has a major hole in it. (Not to mention using CW was a red line because it was something that the US was saying should not be allowed to happen. )
It is also clear in some back scenes articles that BEFORE the August attack, but after smaller attacks, Kerry raised the idea with Lavrov of working to get CW out of the unstable country as part of Geneva 2.
The fact that Russia worked with the US to get the CW out - taking tham away from their ally - suggests that their protestations to the contrary, they knew there was a high probability that Assad used them.
As to his assertion that there is a problem with the US saying they were able to reconstruct things - suggesting that had they known, they would have stopped it ignores that looking back in hindsight after something happened, there will often be pieces that come together only after the event happened.
Last edited Mon Dec 9, 2013, 03:37 AM - Edit history (1)
Hersh is asserting that the U.S. was manipulating and cherry picking intelligence to force an attack on Syria. They wanted it to appear that they had definitive proof Assad crossed the infamous "red line". How is that a "major hole"? How would the public know that Assad may not have been responsible for the Sarin attack if that intel is suppressed or distorted?
Whatever Kerry's position on the removal of CW from Syria, the U.S. is still openly aiding the rebels, so any dangerous escalation of hostilities, such as a Sarin attack, would almost inevitably result in the U.S. and potentially other nations being drawn into the conflict against the Syrian government and Assad. Clearly there are quite a few members of Congress who are itching to get the bombs dropping again.
Russia's involvement in pressuring Syria to agree to some sort of plan to remove CW from the battle field proves nothing with regard to Assad's possible culpability for the Sarin attack. More likely Putin is more interested in avoiding an escalation to the conflict that would draw in more powerful players that would almost certainly either spell defeat for Assad or the involvement of Russia and possibly others, which is a pretty terrifying thought. Stabilize the conflict or risk WW III.
Hersh was asserting that the U.S. was shuffling the order of events and claiming to have had real-time intelligence when the attack occurred, all to support their desire to paint Assad as the perpetrator. I'm quite sure Seymour Hersh understands that hindsight at least tries to be 20/20.
Is the idea that the U.S. manipulates intelligence and often promotes military intervention where diplomacy might better serve the interests of peace really that remarkable? Of course not. That has been the U.S. modus operandi for decades, if not longer. I don't expect the Obama administration to be any different, frankly, though hopefully not quite as brazenly quick to disregard international law as Bush was. At least Obama seems to be averse to full scale invasions, which may have been the motivation for his administration's possible push to pin the blame on Assad, evidence be damned. Obama may have wanted to create a crisis situation to draw the Russians into the fray to force Assad to negotiate. Maybe.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... when he attacked a country that was no military threat to us, and killed a dozen civilians doing it.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.
But nice try anyway...
Whisp
(24,096 posts)which is full of stinky stinken bullshit, just like Bill's expensive suits.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
bobclark86
(1,415 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)The upcoming robot-powered pogroms are going to be very satisfying for you.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)The chief of staffs went to congress and told them to suck it because it was a NATO action and they had no oversight.
I don't think President Obama cares that much about Syria, it's more a pet project of the Neocons like McCain. I'm sure he cares for the Syrian people but he's smart enough to keep perspective.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)MidEast plus the Russians and Chinese. Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon--all major players.
gholtron
(376 posts)Was all that in Hersh's report?
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Whatever the Bush admin said, the opposite was likely to be true.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Just because the attack didn't occur doesn't mean his report was incorrect.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)The UN pointed the finger at Assad for the gas attack, not just the Obama admin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?_r=1&
Hersh is full of shit and it's no surprise that an Obama admin hater like yourself would latch on to his bullshit.
He's been selling you bullshit and you've bought it hook line and sinker like a good little puppy.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)LOL
You don't know what the fuck you are talking about.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)LOL
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You are oblivious.
Quit talking about me like you have a clue. You obviously don't.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Lapping up Hersh's bullshit like a good little puppy is rather sad and pathetic.
The UN itself fingered Assad, but you don't give a shit about that. You'd rather make the Obama admin out to be liars and it's typical of you.
You've exposed yourself.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Show me where I did that?
For Chrissake...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)So why even reply to me in the first place and ask me if Hersh's reporting is was ever wrong?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Hersh's claims are backed up by pretty much nothing.
Again, you have penchant to latch on to bullshit spouted by people like Hersh whose only goal is to bring in the cash.
Open your eyes and educate yourself.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The Iran story! You brought up the Iran story. I was responding to you bringing up the Iran story.
Jesus...
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Hersh says so.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Quit wasting my time. That's not what I said at all.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He's also saying the Obama admin lied about the chemical weapons attack in Syria even though the UN itself agreed with the Obama admin and has substantial evidence implicating Assad.
But it's OK, Hersh is making the Obama admin out to be liars and it has you stimulated and coy.
Keep on keepin' on.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)What the fuck?
By the way, I'm still waiting for you to admit you were wrong or apologize about all the other things I proved you were wrong about in so many other threads. Instead, just more making shit up in your head about me ,and accusing me of being troll (
) or right-winger or whatever the fuck is going on in your head, and calling me a "good little puppy" or other ad Hominem shit that has no business in this discussion.
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #83)
Post removed
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Pure utter bullshit.
You were confused that was talking about Iran and YOU started the discussion.
Then turned to baseless accusations, and ad Hominem crap.
I can't remember which threads to link to BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY.
You STILL haven't even addressed my original point. If my agenda is so clear why is it going completely over your head?? What the fuck is it that you think I'm trying to do? Keep Obama from getting elected to a third term? After I voted for and campaigned for him twice???
You don't know SHIT about me.
(And I didn't ask you to "grovel," did I?)
TiberiusB
(487 posts)The U.N. report did not blame Assad. The report only concluded that surface to surface missiles containing Sarin were used. The report does not go into assigning blame as that was not part of the U.N.'s remit
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Do you not remember any of Bush's Axis of Evil speeches naming Iran as the number one culprit that he intended to "take out" along with Korea? And are you not aware of cia operations that have been on going since & during W's administration? What do you think that was about? a Tea Party maybe?
billhicks76
(5,082 posts)If people weren't so opposed to it then they would try to make it happen. Hersch is usually right. He probably is here.
questionseverything
(9,657 posts)The administration buried intelligence on the fundamentalist group/rebel group al-Nusra. It was seen, Hersh says, as an alarming threat by May, with the U.S. being aware of al-Nusra member able to make and use sarin, and yet the group – associated with the rebel opposition in Syria – was never considered a suspect in the sarin attacks. Hersh refers to a top-secret June cable sent to the deputy director of the Defense Intelligence Agency that said al-Nusra could acquire and use sarin. But the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of the Defense Intelligence Agency could not find the document in question, even when given its specific codes.
Response to Cali_Democrat (Reply #9)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Autumn
(45,120 posts)The article doesn't give a lot of information.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... see #3 in this thread for a link to the full article in the London Review of Books article. If you want more info, you'll find it there.
Autumn
(45,120 posts)
4bucksagallon
(975 posts)Hopefully these weapons will be dismantled, and I don't care if someone lied to make it happen.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)I much prefer this outcome to a war.
George II
(67,782 posts)
former9thward
(32,046 posts)Every country the U.S. tried to ship them to for destruction rejected them. So now the U.S. is going to destroy them in the middle of the ocean. Look out whales!
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)over at Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)Death of Osama bin Laden
In September 2013, during an interview with The Guardian, Hersh commented that the 2011 raid that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden was "one big lie, not one word of it is true". He made the claim that the Obama administration lies systematically, and that American media outlets are reluctant to challenge the administration, saying "It's pathetic, they are more than obsequious, they are afraid to pick on this guy [Obama],".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymour_Hersh#Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden
American media are always out to make this president look weak and ineffective. They're hungering - starving - for another Republican in the WH and to hand over control of Congress to the GOP. So this is very curious to me.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)I don't know what his politics are but, it seems he's using a 'puke talking point about the President's alleged lying. Some of his other reporting has been questionable, as I'm sure you've read at Wikipedia. OTOH, some of his reports have been direct hits.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)some of his reports were spot on and some were total misses. But it's hard for me to find his Osama bin Laden statement credible, and not only because he contends that the M$M have been soft on this president when we damn well know the opposite is true.
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)suspect. Hersh doesn't give HP the story but, he gives it the news the New Yorker and WaPo turned him down? That way HP can directly link to Hersh's article, making sure it gets wide exposure. I trust Ariana Huffington and AOL about as far as I can throw them.
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)is going through the typical bait 'n' switch phase that all American media have gone through before ultimately being bought up by pro-Republican/Right-wing corporations. A good example is The New York Post that was - believe it or not - extremely liberal before 1976, before Murdoch bought it over and turned it into a right-wing rag.
It's been a cynical pattern throughout our history and across our country that has ultimately killed our Fourth Estate. Even MSNBC is beginning to show alarming signs of going through this transition from fact-based news to just another pro-corporate/anti-Democratic Party propaganda outlet.
The bait 'n' switch in American media starts out by being center-left to left in order to gain reader/viewership. Once they've achieved their goal, they're bought out by mega-corporations for millions/billions of dollars, and then slowly but surely pro-corporate propaganda is incorporated, replacing fact-based news.
Arianna knew how to make a buck by betting on the anger of the American people during the Bush years with no outlets for them to vent. HuffPo in its early days was anti-Bush and anti-Republican all the way, and she got some of the best liberal bloggers to volunteer, without any compensation, to write for her online newspaper. Then, as President Obama got elected, I noticed how more and more known Republicans were appearing on HuffPo. Then she made bank at $350 million and the transition that was already happening, is now halfway finished to become just another M$M propaganda outlet.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)and always will be, an anti-incumbant, nothing more.
George II
(67,782 posts)
Cha
(297,415 posts)No worries there some who will believe anything if it calls the Obama Admin liars.
It's not curious to me.. fuck all the jackals
Thanks for the post, BlueCali~
BlueCaliDem
(15,438 posts)What bothers me is, he's a 50/50er. He get 50% of his reporting correct and then 50% of it is just way out of whack and so out there, that it eviscerates the good reporting he does because it kills his credibility as an investigative reporter.
When his "Obama lied about Syria" was offered to both WaPo and the reputable The New Yorker, and they both turned him down, that should be a red-light for all DUers to not begin defending him here on a MB that supports the Democratic Party.
I mean, really. His accusation that American Media are all afraid to ask this president the hard questions is just sour grapes, and we know that it flies in the face of the reality for the past five years!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Pundits gotta live, paycheck to paycheck. I'm not absolute about any of these stories, but looking to the intent and the fellow travellers, I can't help but wonder. In the long run, I don't care about it. Just another Benghazi for the headlines.
I do not believe in any form of commerical 'free' speech since it ain't free. I'm more likely to believe the crudest concotion by an unpaid individual on the net than a media 'repeater.' And those who jump in with the word 'lie' all sound like that rightwing rethug who shouted 'liar' at the SOTU. IOW, they use loaded words to convey an idea of no caliber.
Regarding Syria, a lof of the media failed EarlG's multiple choice question. Their filter is set to one thing and it is always negative to Obama, Democrats, and government in general, just like the Koch brothers and the GOP. The answer will be 'A' no matter what the question is:
Or 'B' or 'C.' Never 'D' as that is a 'no go.' And so it goes...
al_liberal
(420 posts)We might have ultimate civilian decision making over our our military but the MIC and the JCS would always select war over peace. War is their bread and butter and the more we wage the more money they get to blow on pie in the sky pipe dream weapons systems. In my mind the NSA, CIA, and DIA all would rather we "bomb bomb bomb" anyone than seek diplomacy.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)... when the Afghanistan surge was decided upon, the alternative was "a full-scale mutiny by his generals."
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-generals-revolt-20091028
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)WTF? Hersh "Alleges"! I could "allege" that Obama shits ice cream and landed on the moon this morning, then run off and hide.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)You demand it be wholly Democratic, instead of Underground, even though both words are in the name of the site.
People have been discussing Seymour Hersh here long before you showed up. It is perfectly appropriate for his latest to be posted and discussed, whether it's accurate or not.
George II
(67,782 posts)....just to start a debate?
As long as its critical of Obama, of course!
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)This is not Iraq. Several other nations independently came to the conclusion that the Syrian government is the one that used chemical weapons. Of course, Hirsh's report also does not explain how does this square with Syria's subsequent agreement to destroy these chemical weapons.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23928871
France says the chemical attack near Damascus last month "could not have been ordered and carried out by anyone but the Syrian government".
A report presented to parliament by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault says the assault on 21 August involved the "massive use of chemical agents".
It concludes that at least 281 deaths can be attributed to the attack.
* * *
The use of chemical weapons can only be authorised by President Assad or "certain influential members of his clan", says the report, while opposition forces lack the capacity to carry out such a large-scale chemical attack.
TomCADem
(17,390 posts)Unless the U.N. and Human Rights Watch were also part of the conspiracy, the report that the rebels were actually behind the attack does not sound credible.
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-path
The UN inspectors investigating the chemical weapons attack on two suburbs in Damascus last month weren’t supposed to point the finger at the party responsible for the killings. But even so, the Sellstrom report revealed key details of the attack that strongly suggest the government is to blame, and may even help identify the location from which the Sarin-filled rockets that killed hundreds of people on August 21 were fired.
In appendix 5 of their report, after describing the size and structure of two rocket delivery systems used, they go one step further and actually reveal the direction some of the rockets likely came from. Using standard field investigative techniques examining the debris field and impact area where the rockets struck, the report provides precise azimuths, or angular measurements, that allow us to work out the actual trajectory of the rockets.
“Impact site number 1 (Moadamiya) and impact site number 4 (Ein Tarma),” the inspectors wrote, “provide sufficient evidence to determine, with a sufficient degree of accuracy, the likely trajectory of the projectiles.” They go on to say that 3 of the rockets they inspected had bearings of 34 and 35 degrees for 2 of the rockets that landed in Moadamiya, and 285 degrees for 1 of the rockets that landed in Ein Tarma.
Connecting the dots provided by these numbers allows us to see for ourselves where the rockets were likely launched from and who was responsible.
The two attack locations are located 16 kilometers apart, but when mapping these trajectories, the presumed flight paths of the rockets converge on a well-known military base of the Republican Guard 104th Brigade, situated only a few kilometers north of downtown Damascus and within firing range of the neighborhoods attacked by chemical weapons.
According to declassified reference guides, the 140mm artillery rocket used on impact site number 1 (Moadamiya) has a minimum range of 3.8 kilometers and a maximum range of 9.8 kilometers. The Republican Guard 104th Brigade is approximately 9.5 km from the base. While we don’t know the firing range for the 330mm rocket that hit impact site number 4, the area is only 9.6km away from the base, well within range of most rocket systems.
George II
(67,782 posts)Unfortunately I seem to be using this biblical phrase more and more around here.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)argument at Democratic Underground. Not.
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)Sy Hersh has a long piece in the London Review of Books accusing the Obama Administration of cherry-picking intelligence to present its case that Bashar al-Assad launched the chemical weapons attack on August 21.
To be clear, Hersh does not say that Assad did not launch the attack. Nor does he say al-Nusra carried out the attack. Rather, he shows that:
- See more at: http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/12/08/sy-hersh-writing-about-politicized-intelligence-again-syria-edition/
bhikkhu
(10,720 posts)I wonder what its about too, but it really just sounds like more - Obama said something, so say its into a lie somehow.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The reason - Russia demanded that be so.
bhikkhu
(10,720 posts)I don't especially care how the various agendas were impacted. The UN gathered evidence, and the weight of the evidence leads directly to Assad. The UN report was supposed to be the "full accounting" that we didn't have yet when Obama made his statement. If his statement disagreed with what the UN found, there might be something to talk about. It didn't, and there isn't.
So Hersh makes no sense. In this case he sounds more like the radio guys who get paid to spout bile, and who's listeners don't care if its true of not - they just want their daily helping.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)where it did not specifically assigning responsibility. What it did do was to describe how it was done and from where - and that was damning. A journalist is only as good as his sources - here, it is not clear who his sources are -- and they were clearly not that good on Iran.
I really wonder what happened to Hersh, who was an incredible reporter in the 1960s/1970s. Looking at Wikipedia, he has had some really weird books/articles - look at the section on JFK, where he clearly had some real lapses in judgement.
Here, the fact that supposedly both the New Yorker, which did publish a lot of his stuff in the past, and the WP both refused this story suggests that they did not trust it.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)and that is exactly what he argues. That though we got Assad's sarin, we didn't get the rebel's sarin.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If Obama was correct, he wasn't lying. And Hersh dishonestly refuses to discuss ANY of the evidence pointing at the regime from the UN, Human Rights Watch, other sources.
ReRe
(10,597 posts)... I am no Sy Hersh apologist. I actually think he has been lurking around with the dark side for far too long. The "Lay down with dogs, get up with fleas" theorem is what I use most times in judgment situations like this.
But it works all ways.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Also, exactly who did what? It's easy to say the intel was fixed but less easy to identify the fixers, publicly at least.
Iliyah
(25,111 posts)And still don't.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)If it wasn't Sy it would have been someone else.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Leave it to you (!!!!) to make me laugh!
Oh...and Birth Certificate!
freshwest
(53,661 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Thanks a lot...I almost wet my pants!
WMDs!!!
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I guess our home is full of know-nothings because we've never heard of it.
We'll wait on starting to make any decisions when we see that column in the NYT, LA Times, on NPR, etc.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Try Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Review_of_Books
It's a literary and intellectual journal that's been around for 30+ years and is described as "consistently radical."
I don't get too excited by the essays on architecture in the early Georgian, but there are lots of good articles about British and international politics, especially the Middle East. Nice, thoughtful, thorough stuff.
And it's refreshing to get outside the US media echo chamber.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Thanks for the info (seriously!) but my partner who is a lot more up on stuff than I am, still says ...who? And what have they done for us lately (not including said column).
muriel_volestrangler
(101,336 posts)You can search for 'LRB' (or "London Review of Books"
on DU and find some, eg:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023843762
http://www.democraticunderground.com/101627507
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x435504
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x313689
They are just the publishers; the work for this will all have been done by Hersh himself. They have a blog where they put short pieces; longer ones, like the Hersh article, go in the print version, which comes out every 2 weeks I think, and some of those are put on the web. It's far from comprehensive coverage - they'll publish something if it comes to them, or if there are books on the subject worth reviewing (that is still their core purpose). But the writing is always excellent quality, from experts in the field they're writing about.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)My rule of thumb: Be skeptical. And be more skeptical of governments and politicians than of journalists and reporters.
So, yeah, if you forced me to place a bet here, I'd bet that Hersh is on to something.
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)Basically, he concludes that some in the Obama admin (Power, Kerry, Brennan) were hoping it was Assad's deed so that they could launch strikes, and yet the military was against strikes... and the intel suggested Al Nusra might be capable of sarin manufacture (and the DIA won't give him a highly classifed cable!), and something about "real time" intel versus pieced-together-after-the-fact intel, and poof! Obama changed his mind when confronted with contradictory new info and relied on Congress and Russia to block him. Or something like that, I don't know.
SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Then laughed.
Lots of maybe this, maybe that...
Get back to us when you have real proof not just stuff you are making up in your mind.
Oh ya...Benghazi!
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Were they all in on it, too?
TwilightGardener
(46,416 posts)I assume some of the rebel groups might have gotten hold of something, and might be able to launch small attacks, but I haven't seen any indication that anyone has changed their tune about Assad doing this big attack.
Shemp Howard
(889 posts)"Were they all in on it, too?"
Remember when George "The Butcher" Bush said that Saddam had WMD's? Many other countries fell right in line with that fallacy. They were all in on it too. Either by choice or by stupidity.
The only doubters were Dennis Kucinich and the Dixie Chicks.
Ace Acme
(1,464 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It was not a fringe group the way that the Assadapologists who claim it was the rebels are.
PSPS
(13,605 posts)Hersch explains that the rebels had the ability to both manufacture and deliver sarin weapons. He doesn't say they did or that Assad didn't. That's the point of the piece. Assad's wasn't the only side with the capability. Hence, the title of the piece, "Whose sarin?"
As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that matters is that we aren't dragged into yet another war. I think it was everyone's observation at the time, including here on DU, that Obama was ratcheting up everything for an invasion or, as Obama himself said, "surgical strikes." Even Kerry was beating the drum and was shuttling around trying to create another "coalition of the willing." The pushback from both Russia and public opinion in the US caused Obama to stall, though, and we have what I think is a better scenario -- destruction of Assad's chemical weapons without our needless bombing of more civilians "to save them."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1) He ignores the available evidence out there that DOES point directly at the regime--namely the type of missiles used to deliver it and also the positions from which those missiles had been fired;
2) He assumes that Obama is some kind of monster who wants war at any cost and was never interested in a diplomatic resolution, and even suggests/claims that Obama allowed a diplomatic effort because (a) Obama knew his 'lie' about the gas would be revealed and (b) Vladimir Putin was the hero of diplomacy who saved the day.
Hersh is the same crackpot who's been claiming war with Iran has been imminent since 2004. As in, every year he had a new report about how war with Iran was imminent.
Back in Obama's first term, he was claiming that Obama was dead set on a war with Iran.
About as reliable as theblaze.com
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Including all the found video footage that points more to the rebels than the Assad regime as well as multiple reasons for what may have happened. Unlike the UN report it includes plenty of video evidence and the possibility and reasoning as to why the rebels may have done it. http://shoebat.com/2013/08/27/evidence-syrian-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/
One should keep in mind that these rebels (that we have been supporting) are made up of jihadists (that we have been fighting) and their atrocities are well documented all over the net. Including video of an officer eating a dead soldiers heart.
I realize you will defend Obama at any cost but you must realize that supporting the rebels to destabilize Assad had more to do with the "great game" and Russia than anything else. Why else would we bother? Chemical attacks have been condoned by us before. Hell we're the kings of napalm and cluster bombs.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts) geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Good to see who's playing for which team.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)which is why you guys are not taken that seriously around here these days. Too many "team" plays, always in the same threads, working in unison, same talking points, always defending the status quo. TEAM Tango Echo Alpha Mike might be fitting for you guys.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)in order to score points against a Democratic president, calling that bigot's screeds "one of the better blogs" for understanding the issue of Syria's civil war.
I'll take advice on credibility from you as quickly as I'll take marksmanship lessons from Dick Cheney.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)is "out to score some points against Obama". Your whole argument is based upon defending Obama at any cost. Hence the reason you guys are considered Obama bots at DU and aren't taken very seriously anymore. Obama cannot be defeated now so you can rest on that one. He won't run again. The only thing Obama can do is help the country or hurt the country. You guys are just cheerleaders at this point. Cheerleaders for a team that won the game a long, long time ago. Yet your still on the field with your pompoms. Like many DU'ers I choose to base my thinking upon actions and not blind subservience at any cost.
Hersch's article points out that Obama withheld knowledge from the American people. Maybe he did it for good reasons or maybe they were somewhat nefarious. I don't know. But Hersch simply points this out and backs it up and all you guys do is attack the messenger. That is not patriotism. That is blind allegiance. I can't operate like that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Obama is a secret member of the Muslim Brotherhood have exactly zero room to criticize reality-based Democrats.
Calling people 'cheerleaders' doesn't compensate for your own lack of good faith.
You got busted--BUSTED--praising as "one of the better blogs out there" a site that claims that Obama has instructed the IRS to help establish the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States, that condemns Nelson Mandela, etc etc.
When the noxious nature of this website was pointed out to you, you doubled down and REPEATED THE FILTHY RIGHTWING LIES THAT SITE PEDDLES.
Objecting to your lunatic rightwing theories about Obama being a supporter of Al Qaeda does not make us 'cheerleaders'--it makes us sane and decent people.
Your decision to ally yourself with the Michelle Bachmann's of the world on this issue is on you, not us.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)I just mentioned that you never addressed the videos. And still haven't. You attacked the source and nothing more. That site is neither left or right wing. It is what it is but how you correlate the two I don't know. You have performed your normal routine here. 1) attack messenger 2) levy insults 3) tie posters to "right wing" extremism 4) conflate with a right winger (Michelle Bachman). All done by yourself and not by me. 5) pronounce yourself as sane and decent. Right. Your post speaks quite loudly. personally I'm happy to shed some light on you guys and your consistent MO at DU. It has grown quite old and people see you as the cheerleaders, yes cheerleaders that you are. Rah, rah,, rah.
It's amazing to think you actually believe Syria would be better off than it is now under Assad (who i am no fan of by the way, I would like to see the whole world without sovereign rulers (dictators) but reality (look at Iraq) is often misconstrued by people such as yourself. We already created a shia state in Iraq that is now spiraling out of control and going backwards as far as progress goes. Now you want to do the same in Syria. Underneath it all the whole thing never was about chemical weapons. (of course you know that). It's about what people like Seymour Hersch and Noam Chomsky write about. It's about the Great Game. Of which you are just a foot soldier in.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is a bad thing.
I don't watch videos from such places because they are inherently untrustworthy and subject to being faked just like any other form of communication.
Bullshit--another lie from you. It's a rightwing website from a rightwing anti-Muslim bigot who makes his living off the sharia panic movement in the United States and appearances on Glenn Beck. Hence the attacks on Nelson Mandela and pimping of the IRS/Benghazi/Obama is a secret Muslim garbage. It's more rightwing and less respectable than Orly Taitz.
It's amazing to see so-called progressives argue that a ruthless, mass-murdering dictator is the best a country can do.
Assad is a Shia along with the rest of Syria's ruling (but minority) class, genius, and it's spiraling out of control because Assad sicced his attack dogs on peaceful protestors rather than permitting a process for a transition to representative rule. That created the civil war, which created the opportunity for the head choppers to move in.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)that we are supporting.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)
go west young man
(4,856 posts)All par for the course. Your MO is plain to see for everyone at DU these days.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,235 posts)
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,336 posts)with the possible exceptions of 'Curveball' and Ahmed Chalabi. See, for instance, a CNN investigation into his biographical claims:
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/US/07/11/terrorism.expert/
He got money from the Bush administration; he's a darling of right wing media. It is impossible for him to be 'one of the best blogs'. He sells horror stories to Fox, WND and others, who lap them up. An example:
Shoebat: "The enemy has his Trojan horse in the White House"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Shoebat is an insane, bigoted shitstain of a website, and no progressive could read that site for 10 seconds and disagree with me.
Very first story on the homepage:
http://shoebat.com/shoebat-foundation/obamas-wahhabist-fundraising-empire/
Another article on the home page:
http://shoebat.com/2013/12/08/ted-cruz-marco-rubio-praise-fidel-castro-comrade/
That is why it is so inexplicable to see both of these men lower the bar for political correctness by heaping praise on the now deceased Nelson Mandela, a man who had great reverence for Castro.
Your link to Shoebat helps prove my point- it's the bigots and bad guys pimping that horseshit conspiracy theory.
Please don't link to that bigoted piece of garbage site again.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)However, the videos speak for themselves. I note that you avoided the videos (which incidentally have nothing to do with that messenger that you attacked). I don't like the messenger view points as a whole but the videos raise many questions. You and your team mates attack this stuff yet the people "yourselves and Obama" wanted to support were eating human hearts on the internet which makes this guy look not so bad, don''t ya think? Think about deeply now. The people Obama and yourselves supported were EATING HUMAN HEARTS.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Lots of crank bigots put up videos. I don't watch any of them. Do you watch the videos posted at Stormfront and then recommend that people do as well?
The actual investigations done by credible organizations (the United Nations, Human Rights Watch) found physical evidence that points the finger at the regime. The rockets that delivered the sarin are in Assad's arsenal, not al Nusras.
You, in turn, have videos posted on the website of a far rightwing bigot and career liar.
You're buying that bigots' hype about Obama supporting people who eat human hearts. The US government is not supporting Al Qaeda in Syria. That's filthy rightwing spin.
That you're forced into the arms of a fraudulent bigot to support your argument shows how discredited it is.
"Makes this guy look not so bad."
You're now trying to peddle a rampaging dictator whose goons castrate schoolboys and use poison gas on civilians as "not so bad."
Go sit next to Henry Kissinger.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)They wouldn't bolster your argument. Your MO at DU is primarily attack the messenger regardless of evidence. Granted I made this one easy for you but do pay attention. The opposition which Obama wanted to support, and you are a defender of, were EATING HUMAN HEARTS. Pay attention... they were EATING HUMAN HEARTS cut out of the chest of a dead enemy combatant. Defend that one please. Here's a video link in case you "don't" want to watch it! http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c9_1368347673 Do tell us how this was such a genius move by Obama again I'm truly curious how you rationalize yourself.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Syria doesn't magically convert it to the truth.
It's still a lie.
Yes, there are really awful human beings fighting against Assad in Syria.
But, your attempt to smear anyone fighting against "not so bad" Assad as a psychotic cannibal is right along the lines of your buddy Shoebat's schtick.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/09/ihs-jane-study-nationalities-of-militants-in-syria-in-figures-2722078.html
Yet we are still supporting them even today through US military training in Saudi Arabia.
http://www.janes.com/article/28498/training-of-syrian-insurgents-steps-up-in-saudi-arabia
Yet I am the liar you say. There's your links cheerleader. Cheer away.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Just like you are the liar when you say the President supports Al Qaeda in Syria.
Here's reality--unlike the rightwing blogs you wallow in (note that you cited more rightwing pieces in your attacks here--very revealing on your part, and making me feel better about the 'cheerleader term' as you seem to be a Fox News type)--
There are multiple groups fighting against Assad. Some of them domestic, some of them foreign. And a lot of the foreigners fighting Assad are the worst of the worst--the head-chopping, face-eating monsters.
These factions, despite their common enemy, do not get along particularly well and are rivals.
The US policy is to support the non=foreign born nutters and to NOT provide aid to the nutters like Al Nusra.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)you are saying a link to Janes Defense Weekly, the number 1 source on military matters in the world is a link to a right wing Faux news affiliated source? Is that correct because if so you obviously have no understanding of Janes Defense Weekly or military matters and have thereby weakened your entire argument. You have shown with your above post that you don't understand these matters at all. Please do some research on Janes and get back to us. I would figure they would give you guys better training than that.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)First link: the Torygraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html
Second link
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/09/ihs-jane-study-nationalities-of-militants-in-syria-in-figures-2722078.html
Note on the second link that its url says "opinion-conservative." Also, beforeitsnews.com is a fabulous site, if you're a Birther:
http://beforeitsnews.com/obama/2013/10/barack-obamas-kenyan-birth-certificate-and-baby-foot-print-2456382.html
go west young man
(4,856 posts)As you once again attack the source/messenger but fail to refute the info gleaned from within.
http://www.janes.com/article/11625/syrian-radicals-seen-with-saudi-supplied-weapons
http://www.janes.com/article/30639/osint-summary-syria-s-most-powerful-islamist-militant-groups-unite
The above link includes the following:
In a video statement released to Al-Jazeera on 22 November, Suqor al-Sham leader Ahmed Abu Issa al-Sheikh announced the formation of Al-Jabha al-Islamiyya (or the Islamic Front) by way of the complete merger of his group with Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya, Liwa al-Tawhid, Jaish al-Islam, Jabhat al-Kurdiyya, Kataib Ansar al-Sham, and Liwa al-Haq.
In an accompanying statement, Al-Jabha al-Islamiyya asserted that it represented "an independent military and social force that is aimed at bringing down [President Bashar al-] Assad's regime in Syria and at replacing it with an Islamic state." The merger of the front's seven constituent groups means Al-Jabha al-Islamiyya will operate in at least 13 of Syria's 14 governorates, with IHS Jane's Terrorism and Insurgency Centre estimating that the front commands a total armed force of at least 50,000 fighters.
Now please do tell how the US will be better served by that scenario? Personally I'm against all war. But as you seem to believe that Obama's support of these fighters is in the best interest of the US please elaborate as to how the above situation is to our benefit. I'm pretty sure you won't answer the question directly. As you can't without losing this debate.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)of Al Qaeda.
It appears your admiration of Walid Shoebat's work is not an accident. Which makes interactions worse than pointless.
Last word is yours.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)to comment on the Janes article and instead deflect somewhere else, as usual. Let me put it this way if you can't comment on what Janes wrote about then you lose this argument as the Janes article proves beyond any doubt that Obama and Obamabots like yourself are arming Muslim extremists. It tells who they are, how it is being implemented and what they want. Those are the guys you are supporting arming in that above link.
You have twisted our little debate every way you can but you can't refute that your argument is for arming those extremists. What say you of Janes? What say you of their article? Why the constant deflection? Does it not fit your ready made argument? It's ok to say I was wrong, we were for supporting HEART EATING JIHADIST EXTREMISTS. Come on let it out....you know you want to.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)you will not find me writing that you want to arm members of Al Qaeda...although I'm sure some of the jihadists may be former members. (I just never wrote that)
I wrote that we are supporting extremist jihadists who EAT HUMAN HEARTS. The Al Qaeda thing is a hangup of yours that you seem to have invented for yourself.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)any great revelation now.
snot
(10,530 posts)I'm afraid he's been more trustworthy than Obama.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)The difference this time is that public sentiment was so anti-war they couldn't go through with it. We'd seen this shit before.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)and that the UN and Human Rights Watch are also lying about who committed the gas attack.
PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Why are they any less credible than the people that have lied to us so many times before about similar matters?
I think it was the rebels or rebel sympathizers looking to draw us into war. I'm glad it didn't happen.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)Whatever fits the agenda.
Bush and Cheney had facts too.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)PeteSelman
(1,508 posts)I've just seen this happen before. And I've read about it happening many times previous.
The good thing is that war was thwarted. That's all that really matters to me.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)
BeyondGeography
(39,377 posts)He's the boy who cried wolf too many times on invading Iran.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Woodward does it by promoting Third Way bullshit, Hersh does it by serving spouting propaganda from the Kremlin.
More "Putin saves the world from Obama" nonsense from the fever swamps.
Notice that Hersh doesn't discuss ANY of the non-US government research indicating it was the Syrian regime. He pretends those reports do not exist.
Why? Because he is an unprincipled hack, not a journalist, at this stage of his fading career. He has his story, and ignores everything that contradicts it.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)Russia did intervene and pressured Syria to dismantle their CW stocks. The Obama administration was pushing for a vote to attack when Russia got involved. Whether Russia helped the administration out of a jam or whether it stymied their plans is debatable, but the fact that it was Russia's intervention that helped push Syria to negotiate is not. That hardly makes Russia a global hero, as I am certain they benefit from avoiding a larger regional war as well.
You keep going after Hersh for supposedly not going into detail about the evidence the Administration had implicating Assad's regime in the attacks, but that isn't really the point of Hersh's article. He is contending that some evidence was being either suppressed or distorted to make the case against Assad. At no point is Hersh arguing that Assad wasn't to blame (nor is anyone in this thread, btw), simply that the Obama Administration appeared to be willing to walk the dangerous path so recently traveled by the Bush Administration by distorting evidence to open the door for military action.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)right about who used the sarin, and Obama didn't launch a single missile. Other than that, just like Iraq and Vietnam.
Hersh compared it to Gulf of Tonkin. Nuff said.
Russia did play a role. They and the US were working on this behind the scenes constantly. The framework for the deal had been discussed between Putin and Obama personally , as well as by their subordinates months in advance .
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Obama and Kerry were the other side of that negotiation. Even if you look to the first day's accounts, you will see the final agreement by Lavrov and Kerry was closer to doing what Kerry was demanding than to Lavrov's position.
By your definition, intelligence is ALWAYS cherry picked. There always is a process to weed out things that are not credible or are irrelevant. There were major factors that pushed the US - and other Western countries - to see that it was very very likely that Assad's government did this. The bigger question was actually if Assad himself approved it.
The problem with Hersh's claims are they ignore that later investigation backed up that Assad's government did use chemical weapons -- and in the end it was only very sketchy sources saying otherwise.
Where it is complicated is that both sides have been guilty of crimes that may well be crimes against humanity. Hersh would have had a better case if he would have investigated the US encouragement of the moderate rebels. There is a REAL question of whether we should ever be involved like that.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)I usually trust Hersh's reporting but I can't this time.
For starters, if Al-Nusra has had the ability to produce and deploy Sarin gas, why aren't they using it all the time? We're not exactly talking about a group with a lot of morality. The Syrian military has had the advantage for a while now and certainly has regained the initiative. If they have it, why haven't they used it? And why haven't they used it on military targets and government HQs?
Israel has shown the ability and motive to attack Syrian military positions in response to them shipping weapons. They would have no problem taking down Al-Nusra if they felt the group had Sarin gas.
If Al-Nusra had launched a large-scale attack with Sarin gas, wouldn't that greatly justify our sending in troops and airstrikes to prevent that terrorist group from launching gas attacks in other countries? We could justify taking out Assad along the way on the grounds that he allowed the terrorist groups to become too powerful and thus a threat to the nation.
TiberiusB
(487 posts)Al-Nusra is likely aware that should they use the Sarin gas, they risk losing their international support from countries like the U.S., not to mention a possible full retaliation from Assad. That might get Assad out of the picture ultimately, but at a pretty high cost, possibly too high even for such radical extremists. As for the Syrian military having the advantage, I would argue that things are more of a stale mate right now.
Why would Israel intervene if Al Nusra is doing their dirty work? Let Al Nusra take down Assad and then take out Al Nusra if necessary. It seems like a winning plan for Israel.
If Al-Nusra was responsible for the Sarin gas attack, the only logical reason for such a strike would be to place the blame on Assad and draw the U.S. into the war. Al-Nusra isn't hanging out in convenient locations ready to be bombed, nor is the U.S. going to officially endorse a foreign policy of "And while we're here, how about some regime change?" This is especially true with the public so tired of war that even limited air strikes are virtually impossible to push through.
There are no saints in the Syrian conflict, except maybe the millions of suffering civilians caught in the middle.
agentS
(1,325 posts)Looking at Israel's actions and strike history, they don't seem too enthused about the prospects of an Al-Qaeda linked group with WMD, judging by their actions against others in the past though they've made more of a habit out of targeting governments since they are the ones making WMDs, usually nuclear ones.
So that's why I'm not sold on Al-Nusra having a hand in that attack. Other attacks- well, I'm no mid-east expert, so I'll just read the speculation as it comes down the pipe.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack. In the months before the attack, the American intelligence agencies produced a series of highly classified reports, culminating in a formal Operations Order – a planning document that precedes a ground invasion – citing evidence that the al-Nusra Front, a jihadi group affiliated with al-Qaida, had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity. When the attack occurred al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad.
In his nationally televised speech about Syria on 10 September, Obama laid the blame for the nerve gas attack on the rebel-held suburb of Eastern Ghouta firmly on Assad’s government, and made it clear he was prepared to back up his earlier public warnings that any use of chemical weapons would cross a ‘red line’: ‘Assad’s government gassed to death over a thousand people,’ he said. ‘We know the Assad regime was responsible … And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.’ Obama was going to war to back up a public threat, but he was doing so without knowing for sure who did what in the early morning of 21 August.
He cited a list of what appeared to be hard-won evidence of Assad’s culpability: ‘In the days leading up to August 21st, we know that Assad’s chemical weapons personnel prepared for an attack near an area where they mix sarin gas. They distributed gas masks to their troops. Then they fired rockets from a regime-controlled area into 11 neighbourhoods that the regime has been trying to wipe clear of opposition forces.’ Obama’s certainty was echoed at the time by Denis McDonough, his chief of staff, who told the New York Times: ‘No one with whom I’ve spoken doubts the intelligence’ directly linking Assad and his regime to the sarin attacks.
But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence. One high-level intelligence officer, in an email to a colleague, called the administration’s assurances of Assad’s responsibility a ‘ruse’. The attack ‘was not the result of the current regime’, he wrote. A former senior intelligence official told me that the Obama administration had altered the available information – in terms of its timing and sequence – to enable the president and his advisers to make intelligence retrieved days after the attack look as if it had been picked up and analysed in real time, as the attack was happening. The distortion, he said, reminded him of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, when the Johnson administration reversed the sequence of National Security Agency intercepts to justify one of the early bombings of North Vietnam. The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’
http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin
go west young man
(4,856 posts)It's more to their advantage to attack Hersch and any other messengers. Your causing them to have to come away from their cliff notes and scripts. Not good. Any second now they should be telling you that now they know which side your on. That will be followed by numerous insults and more attacks on the messenger. The same MO is in every thread they operate in.
Mysterysouppe
(68 posts)Unfortunately, that appears to be the attitude of most of the people in this thread.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I would welcome you to DU, but I don't like to be dishonest.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The 22-page report, “Attacks on Ghouta: Analysis of Alleged Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria,” documents two alleged chemical weapons attacks on the opposition-controlled suburbs of Eastern and Western Ghouta, located 16 kilometers apart, in the early hours of August 21. Human Rights Watch analyzed witness accounts of the rocket attacks, information on the likely source of the attacks, the physical remnants of the weapon systems used, and the medical symptoms exhibited by the victims as documented by medical staff.
“Rocket debris and symptoms of the victims from the August 21 attacks on Ghouta provide telltale evidence about the weapon systems used,” said Peter Bouckaert, emergencies director at Human Rights Watch and author of the report. “This evidence strongly suggests that Syrian government troops launched rockets carrying chemical warheads into the Damascus suburbs that terrible morning.”
Still waiting on Hersh's reports of an imminent war with Iran to pan out, as well as his 'evidence' that Obama lied about the killing of bin Laden.
Mysterysouppe
(68 posts)Amnesty International pushed the "incubators" story that was used to support the Gulf War. They were wrong.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Their source is whatever works in their favor watch. They cite the UN and Human Rights Watch now but ask them how they feel about the Georgian conflict and the UN report on that one and suddenly the UN is completely wrong. Like righties they just move the goal posts and bolster their arguments anyway they can.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)in their history. Nobody is infallible, and it's fair to point out when these organizations get it wrong.
However, it is likewise unfair to point at a single failure and conclude that the organization is untrustworthy or incapable. The ACLU's defense of the Citizen's United ruling is a great example - yes, it may have been the wrong thing to do, but the long-term track record of the ACLU is still pretty damned impressive.
The really ugly trend here on DU is that of judging a source's legitimacy based upon whether it uncritically supports the Administration or not.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)Personally I'm not attached to a win or lose view on any of these conflicts or the reviews thereof. I am just a bit tired of all the cheerleading around here and the contentment with the status quo. I prefer geo politics over US politics as a debate subject as it's much more interesting and nationalism goes out the window when one breaches the broader pic. And what all this attack on Hersch is really about is nationalism. It's as simple as that... it's nationalism which makes us not much better than tea bagging fools in that regard. I think these cheerleader fail to see that.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)by whether or not they address the content of the post or simply insult the source. Unfortunately you find a large amount of the latter on DU these days, usually from the same posters.
Even when a source is questionable, it makes for a much stronger argument if one avoids lapsing into ad hominem attacks.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)I will go out on a limb and state that the UN is a better source than Walid Shoebat, though you obviously disagree.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)Where does that leave you?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Since his profession is "racist liar."
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)It's been corroborated by the UN investigation
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/world/europe/syria-united-nations.html?_r=0
In two chilling pieces of information, the inspectors said that the remnants of a warhead they had found showed its capacity of sarin to be about 56 liters — far higher than initially thought. They also said that falling temperatures at the time of the attack ensured that the poison gas, heavier than air, would hug the ground, penetrating lower levels of buildings “where many people were seeking shelter.”
The investigators were unable to examine all of the munitions used, but they were able to find and measure several rockets or their components. Using standard field techniques for ordnance identification and crater analysis, they established that at least two types of rockets had been used, including an M14 artillery rocket bearing Cyrillic markings and a 330-millimeter rocket of unidentified provenance.
...
Moreover, those weapons are fired by large, conspicuous launchers. For rebels to have carried out the attack, they would have had to organize an operation with weapons they are not known to have and of considerable scale, sophistication and secrecy — moving the launchers undetected into position in areas under strong government influence or control, keeping them in place unmolested for a sustained attack that would have generated extensive light and noise, and then successfully withdrawing them — all without being detected in any way.
One annex to the report also identified azimuths, or angular measurements, from where rockets had struck, back to their points of origin. When plotted and marked independently on maps by analysts from Human Rights Watch and by The New York Times, the United Nations data from two widely scattered impact sites pointed directly to a Syrian military complex.
Other nonproliferation experts said the United Nations report was damning in its implicit incrimination of Mr. Assad’s side in the conflict, not only in the weaponry fragments but also in the azimuth data that indicated the attack’s origins. An analysis of the report posted online by the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based advocacy group, said “the additional details and the perceived objectivity of the inspectors buttress the assignment of blame to Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government.”
HRW and the UN certainly has more credibility than the cranks, loons, Assadapologists, rightwing nutjobs, and David Irving-style charlatans pushing the "rebels did it" nonsense.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)If you want people to believe the other guys did it all you have to do is get similar weaponry and fire it from the right azimuth. Hence everyone will believe due to those two simple factors the other guy did it. Of course pulling off this feat would require......(sound of crickets).........nothing.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)You've been reading shitstain conspiracy sites like Shoebat.com for too long.
Getting very large rocket launcher assemblies, moving them through enemy-held territory, and in the process arming them with the appropriate quantities of sarin artillery shells is more than 'nothing."
Per the NYT:
You just can't handle that your widdle consiracy theory has been disproven by people who actually know stuff.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)are also made up of soldiers from the Syrian army. No way would they ever have the knowledge or access to pull that one off! 
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)This is what a 330mm rocket launcher looks like:
This is where the attacks triangulate to, based on the vectors:
So, no, the rebels did not conjure up those massive rocket launchers and sneak them into the headquarters of the Republican Guard.
And, of course, the rebels have the ability to make modest amounts of the stuff, not the industrial scale ability to fill 330mm rockets of the concentration that was used at Ghouta.
Sorry, again, that your fantasies are contradicted by people who know stuff.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)
WatermelonRat
(340 posts)You don't have to cover for Assad anymore.
Mysterysouppe
(68 posts)And no thanks to President Obama, who would have attacked Syria if we hadn't stopped him.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)If Obama really wanted to bomb Syria, he could have done what every other President has done when they wanted to bomb a country--he would have bombed them and then submitted the issue to Congress (like he did in Libya).
Mysterysouppe
(68 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)That's part of his normal MO. All par for the course. He gets away with it all the time at DU. At this point in the thread he and his cohorts have achieved their overall goal of distorting the facts, slandering the messenger, conflating small points, throwing out some red herrings, derailing the topic, correlating opposing views with right wing extremism and basically squashing any intelligent debate on the matter. And all the while dancing around with a pair of pompoms in their hands. It is quite impressive if you think about it.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)for understanding conflict in the Middle East.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)I have no doubt in my mind that President Obama lied about the chemical weapons.
Assad was winning and his opposition was getting fragmented. There was no reason for him to use chemical weapons at that point. If he didn't use them when he was losing, why would he use them when he was winning so handily?
On the other hand, the Islamist rebels desperately needed to get the west involved and had every reason to use the chemical weapons. Other players who wanted the west involved could have easily provided the Islamic rebels with chemical weapons -- Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel.
It is amazing that within minutes of the alleged chemical attack, all four of them knew about it and came out with appeals for a US led attack on Syria.
President Obama lied, lied repeatedly and cherry picked intelligence to spin it his way. Thankfully, the master statesman Putin stopped an unnecessary war.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Were they all in on it, too? Clearly they have ALL lied to their citizens as well, then...
Did Obama even start the supposed lie? or did he just take the lead from Hollande?
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/ottawa/eu-agrees-syria-behind-gas-attack-urges-us-to-hold-off-2
Nice necro, btw...
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)France has had a hardon for a joint war against Syria and Iran for a while now.
