On Tuesday there was a chemical weapons attack in Syria‘s. Idlib providence in which dozens have reportedly died. Today, the Trump administration bombed an airfield in Syria in apparent retaliation.
Only last week the Trump administration was suggesting that it might leave the Assad regime alone, but now they’re attempting to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering other possibilities.
Chemical weapons attacks have occurred in Syria before. In 2013, there were two devastating attacks which prompted the Obama administration to try to justify a direct strike on the Assad government.
It turns out the Obama administration was wrong in its assessment. The U.N. thoroughly investigated the first 2013 attack and ultimately said the evidence indicated the attack was carried out by the Syrian rebels – not the Syrian government. Despite this report, the US and its allies increased support for the Syrian rebels, which makes me wonder why Obama condemned the chemical attacks.
Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh investigated the second major attack and discovered it was committed in a similar manner. Hersh found that the U.S. quite deliberately attempted to frame the evidence to justify a strike on Assad without even considering al-Nusra, a terror group with access to nerve agents.
In 2016, the U.N. concluded that the Syrian government and ISIS had used chemical weapons during the years-long conflict, despite that the U.N. also declared in 2013 that the regime no longer possessed chemical weapons.
These reports are accessible, available to anyone who wants to study the issue, but the media and politicians want us to rush to blame Assad without any actual investigation. The Guardian is all over it (see here and here). The New Zealand Herald is insisting that only Donald Trump can stop the Syrian atrocities. These articles ignore the reports from 2013, claiming that “Obama did nothing” in response. That claim makes no sense since in 2016, Obama more than 10,000 bombs on Syria. As president, Obama also oversaw the CIA’s expenditures of about $1 billion a year training Syrian rebels.
If you care about fake news, you might want to pay attention to this entire situation because this constitutes “fake news”. These are biased reports designed to invoke a particular response from the United States, preferrably quickly, so that we don’t know all the facts until later … or ever. Did we learn nothing from the “Saddam is seeking to purchase yellow-cake uranium” debacle?
Maybe Assad has completely lost his mind and decided to use chemical weapons just days after the U.S. openly acknowledged they would consider leaving Assad alone. Maybe he wants to be bombed out of existence by the international community. He doesn’t come off as insane as Kim Jung Il, but maybe he’s hiding his lunacy better. But we should have taken a deep breath and considered the possibilities for a moment.
What if the rebels committed this attack because they don’t want their funding cut off? The US government could actually have stopped the atrocities in Syria simply by withdrawing support for groups that resort to these tactics.
But, of course, the government isn’t going to do that because the Deep State has wanted US involvement in the War in Syria since 2013 and having expended so much effort in empowering the rebels, it couldn’t let the Trump administration squander the opportunity.
Never let a chemical weapons attack go to waste when you can use false information about it to oust a foreign government that doesn’t want to play ball with the US State Department.
And, hey, a twofer would be even better. Let’s antagonize Russia so we can really force things to a higher level of insanity.
I objected to Obama’s red line in the sand and then backing off because the red line was never necessary. The Assad regime isn’t warm and fuzzy, but it turned out they weren’t the worst of the evil in Syria … something we didn’t know for months after those j2013 attacks. If we’re going to send young Americans into harm’s way, we should be certain of who is responsible. Obama backing off was not something he did … he had no choice when Congress refused to do what he demanded.
Now it’s Trump’s turn and he’s done the same stupid thing … jumped to a conclusion for which there is very little supporting evidence. We learned nothing from the “Saddam is wanting to buy yellow-cake uranium” debacle and our government has potentially started World War 3 on onion-skin slim evidence.