Our preceding post discussed this amazing new piece by Seymour Hersh
on the sarin attacks in Syria. Hersh has also uncovered what may be the real secret of the attack on the American consulate in Benghazi: The consulate provided cover for a rat line which moved arms out of Libya and into Syria, where they went to the rebels.
'The consulate’s only mission was to provide cover for the moving of arms,’ the former intelligence official, who has read the annex, said. ‘It had no real political role.’
Visiting the book store today, I spent a few hours with a book called Under Fire: The Untold Story of the Attack in Benghazi
, by Burton and Katz. There are exactly two references to Syria in this work -- neither of them substantive.
I also went through the Benghazi section in HRC
, the new book about Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. No mention of Syria in connection with the consulate.
So what should we conclude from this? Here (near as I can tell) are the possibilities...
1. Hersh got the story wrong. (I don't think so -- not in this case.)
2. Everyone else missed a should-be-obvious story.
3. Other writers are covering up the facts.
How do you
The media's inattention to Hersh's story amounts to a cover-up.
I Googled it just now: Hersh has been deemed worthy of attention by the likes of Democracy Now, the LaRouchies, Global Research
, and...well, not too many others. As far as mainstream news writers are concerned, Hersh is now considered some toiler on the freaky fringe.
Bet ya anything our mainstream writers will continue to assign Assad responsibility for the sarin attack. And the neocons will continue to score Obama over that "red line" business...