Two stories (including the part they're not telling you)

A strange day, this. The first day of spring, yet snow blankets all.

I want to thank readers for the outpouring of sympathy I received following the previous post. For now, my dog is resting, comfortably and perpetually confused -- and the big problem is getting her to take her phenobarbitol. I'll have more to say about that soon.

Since people do not come here expecting a dog blog, let's focus on the news. There are two stories which say much when read individually, and say much more when read in conjunction. The first concerns history; the second is all about Right Now.

Story #1: The CIA has declassified much more of their 2002 National Intelligence Estimate report on Iraq's supposed possession of WMDs. Actually, what we are getting is a later RAND summary of that NIE, but let's not get too bogged down in details.

Back in 2002, the public was told that the question was settled -- but behind the scenes, intelligence analysts knew differently. Minor portions of this report were released previously; now, we have much more.

We now have confirmed that the CIA knew early on that the administration was basing policy on evidence that was iffy or nonexistent. Reports of a Saddam Hussein-Al Qaeda link derived from defectors who said whatever they thought interrogators wanted to hear (a common problem with defectors). No intelligence linked Iraq to the anthrax letters. There were no WMDs. Those infamous aluminum tubes were for rocket motors. Saddam had no purchased ore from Niger. He wasn't planning to use UAVs to deliver WMDs.

Story #2: They're at it again. We are hearing more allegations that Assad's forces have used CBW. This time, we are told, Assad used chlorine to attack innocent civilians -- as if Assad would have any motive to commit an act of senseless evil.

After Newsweek published an opening salvo a few days ago (not directly assigning responsibility to Assad), few other news organizations wanted to touch the story. Then Reuters picked up on the theme...

The United States is deeply disturbed by reports that Syrian government forces attacked the town of Sarmin using chlorine as a weapon on Tuesday, Secretary of State John Kerry said in a statement on Thursday.

“We are looking very closely into this matter and considering next steps,” he said. “While we cannot yet confirm details, if true, this would be only the latest tragic example of the Assad regime’s atrocities against the Syrian people, which the entire international community must condemn.”

The video adjunct to this agit-prop campaign is here. Now, Josh Rogin of Bloomberg News has published this editorial...

Yet on Monday, Assad’s military killed at least six civilians, including three children, and injured dozens with a chlorine gas bomb attack in the northwestern city of Sarmeen, according to activists on the ground and independent monitoring groups such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

To the Syrian opposition, the attack was reminiscent of events of 2012 and 2013, when Assad used Sarin gas against his own people, according to a UN investigation. The regime began with small doses, perhaps to test whether Obama would enforce the “red line” he had set promising action if Assad used chemical weapons en masse. After an attack that killed at least 1,400 people in August 2013, Obama promised airstrikes, but then backed down in exchange for a Russian-brokered deal to remove chemical weapons from Syria’s stockpiles.

Where to start?

First, let's note that Rogin has compiled quite an impressive history as a neocon-friendly "journalist." You may recall the bullshit stories he floated about Hillary and Boko Haram.

Second: When Rogin says the "Syrian opposition" he means ISIS and the Nusra Front (a.k.a. Al Qaeda). Let's not whitewash the question of who is who in this civil war. The so-called "Free Syrian Army" is largely a fiction designed to gull the Americans.

(Rogin's fellow Israel-Firster, Thomas Friedman, came right out and said that America should arm ISIS.)

Third: Assad almost certainly did not use sarin in 2013, although the neocons tried to mislead Obama -- and the nation -- into reaching that conclusion. As Sy Hersh later revealed...

Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal. The message that the case against Syria wouldn’t hold up was quickly relayed to the US joint chiefs of staff.

This humble blog pointed to a number of published accounts proving that the rebels possessed CBW, and that they had captured facilities which stored the rockets used to launch the attacks. The UN findings were based on the presupposition that the rebels did not possess sarin, but this was a false presumption. Those few who studied the actual Human Rights Watch report (as opposed to reading news summaries) encountered a map which proved that the possible launch sites included rebel-held areas. The New York Times orignally reported that the attack on Ghouta came from rebel-held territory. Actual victims of the attack blamed the rebels, not Assad.

The news media floated stories about phone intercepts proving the guilt of the Assad regime -- but since no evidence was forthcoming, we may fairly presume that these reports were mere tricks. If they were genuine, we would have heard some audio.

Above all other considerations was the question of motive. If Assad were disposed to use CBW, would he not target his actual enemies, as opposed to attacking civilians? As CNN noted at the time...

Government forces did not appear to be in imminent danger of being overrun by rebel factions in the areas concerned; in fact, many observers believe a bloody stalemate has set in around Damascus. And regime forces have also made gains recently against rebels around Homs and elsewhere. Why would it risk an action that would likely kill hundreds in a heavily-populated area and risk stirring up an international appetite for intervention?

Would it also have risked using an agent as lethal as sarin just a few kilometers from the heart of Damascus -- to both the southwest and northeast of the city -- on what appears to have been a quite windy night?

From a military standpoint, the Ghouta atrocity made sense only if considered as a false flag attack.

Similar words may be said about the more recent chlorine attacks.

Here's the part they're not telling you. The following quote comes from a LiveLeak story published last year. This piece concerns an earlier claim of a chlorine attack.

Opposition sources recently claimed Assad forces have used industrial Chlorine against rebels held area in Hama area. Big problem, back to 2012, rebels took control of Syrian-Saudi Chemicals Company (SYSACCO) factory in Aleppo area. The main activity of SYSACCO was the production of.... Chlorine. A huge quantity of Chlorine was stocked in this factory as you can see filmed by rebels. Did they try an other false flag operation to force Western country to intervene in Syrian civil war?

Oddly, our media refuses to mention the 2014 incident. That first chlorine attack came too soon and was too obvious; the rebels weren't fooling anyone. (Below, I will embed a video which, I understand, proves that the anti-Assad rebels captured chlorine in 2013. Unfortunately, the interviews are in Arabic. Perhaps a reader who knows that language can confirm that this video is what I'm told it is?)

Bottom line: We were lied to in 2002.

We were lied to in 2013.

Are we being lied to now? Very likely.