Media Scoundrels Wrongfully
Blame Assad for Gas Attack
By Stephen Lendman
The blame game repeats with disturbing regularity. Media scoundrels bear full responsibility. They lie for power. They do it repeatedly. They do it disgracefully. They ignore hard facts.
Throughout months of conflict, Assad's been wrongfully blamed for insurgent massacres, atrocities, chemical weapons use and other high crimes.
Throughout months of conflict, no evidence whatever links Syrian forces to chemical weapons use. They had nothing to do with attacking Ghouta. Not according Washington, Britain, France and Israel.
Media scoundrels regurgitate their lies. It doesn't surprise. They're waging war on Syria. They support Obama's imperial aggression. They endorse his regime change plans. They back military force to do so.
On September 16, The New York Times headlined "Forensic Details in UN Report Point to Assad's Use of Gas," saying:
UN inspectors didn't assign blame. "(D)etails (they) documented included the large size and particular shape of the munitions and the precise direction from which two of them had been fired."
"Taken together, that information appeared to undercut arguments by President Bashar al-Assad of Syria that rebel forces, who are not known to possess such weapons or the training or ability to use them, had been responsible.
"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."
Throughout months of conflict, Washington, key NATO allies, Israel, and rogue Arab League partners armed, funded and trained insurgents.
They recruited cold-blooded killers. They include Al Qaeda, Al Nusra, and other extremist elements. Heavy weapons are supplied. So are toxic chemicals.
Pentagon contractors trained them in their handling and use. CIA and US special forces are involved.
Rockets with sarin came from insurgent held territory. Pro-Assad civilians were attacked. Don't expect Times editors, commentators or other contributors to explain.
The Washington Post headlined "In Syria, UN inspectors find 'clear and convincing' evidence of chemical attack."
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius was quoted saying:
The UN report "confirms the position of those of us who have said the regime is guilty." Senator John McCain (R. AZ) was cited urging war.
The Washington Post owned Foreign Policy (FP) magazine headlined "Russia and the West Spar Over UN Report, Despite Evidence Pointing to Syrian Regime," saying:
The UN report doesn't "directly blame either the Syrian government or the Syrian opposition, but the scrupulous level of detail in the report provides new evidence pointing to a military-orchestrated assault rather than a rebel-executed chemical weapons attack."
Chemical weapons expert Ralf Trapp was quoted. He ignored clear facts explaining opposite of what he said. Doing so discredits his so-called expertise.
He said evidence "is consistent with an alleged use by Syrian government troops."
It "points to a weapon that came from a military program, used by units that understand and have training in chemical warfare operations."
Chris Harmer is an Institute for the Study of War senior naval analyst. Jeff White is a pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy defense fellow.
Both agree with Trapp. According to Harmer:
"The rebels in Syria can get off a few mortar rounds here and there. On a good day they might even fire off a salvo of recoilless rifles."
"But they don't have the ability to deploy mass indirect fires with rockets, which is how this sarin gas attack occurred in Damascus. The regime does."
"I suppose the apologists for the regime will say they could have been fired from anywhere along those trajectories, but this certainly supports the US intell conclusion that the rockets came from regime territory."
False! Previous articles explained. So does information above. Insurgents have opportunity, motive, heavy weapons, chemical agents, and training on how to use them.
FP lied for power. So did sources it cited. Anti-imperial ones were excluded. Truth is suppressed. It's consistently turned on it head.
The Wall Street Journal went on the warpath. It did so in several reports. It headlined "Report on Gas Attack Emboldens US."
"White House Says UN Account Confirms Damascus' Responsibility, Rallies Support for Punitive Steps." It claims "powerful evidence" indicts Assad. It suggests Iranian involvement.
According to the Journal, the Ghouta attack "relied on rockets that, based on the UN descriptions, were of an Iranian design, though they may have been manufactured in Syria, the experts said.
Iran is Washington's prime target. It's Israel's. Syria is prelude to targeting the Islamic Republic. The road to Tehran runs through Damascus.
The Journal quoted Washington's UN envoy Samantha Power wrongfully claiming "technical details make clear that only the regime could have carried out this large-scale chemical weapons attack."
She lied saying so. It's the oil, gas and regional dominance, stupid!
The Journal quoted French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius saying "All of the (anti-Assad) options remain on the table."
Britain's UN envoy Mark Lyall Grant said evidence leaves "no doubt that it was the regime that used chemical weapons.
A previous day Journal editorial headlined "Into the Syrian Bazaar," saying:
"Even if Assad gives up his chemical weapons, he escapes unpunished for using them."
Two weeks ago, John Kerry lied calling him "a thug and murderer." America is the world champion thuggish mass murderer and much more. Kerry's complicit in high crimes.
Obama lied saying his "goal is to make sure what happened (in Ghouta) does not happen again."
He bears full responsibility for what happened. Syria is his war. Cutthroat killers are his shock troops. They're supplied toxic chemicals. They're trained how to use them.
Don't expect Journal editors to explain. A separate Senator John Barrasso (R. WY) op-ed headlined "Why the Russians Can't Be Trusted in Syria."
It doesn't surprise. He's one of many extremist Capitol Hill right wing neocons. He's unfit to serve. Journal editors featured his commentary.
He said when Obama "reset" relations with Russia in 2009, "Americans never expected that it would include making Vladimir Putin the de facto US ambassador to Syria in 2013."
The Kerry/Lavrov deal is the "most recent evidence," he said. It's "a Russian delaying tactic on behalf of its Syrian ally - a tactic we've seen before."
He claims Moscow is "supplying Assad with advanced cruise missiles." He implied offensive ones. He better check his facts. Russia contacted to supply Syria with sophisticated S-300 and other air defense launch systems.
Barrasso claims "Moscow's military support of the Assad regime is one of the main reasons that more than 100,000 Syrians have been killed in the current conflict."
"(T)he Russians have vetoed every (Security Council) attempt to end civil war."
Moscow and China forthrightly blocked Washington's planned aggression. They did so with three Security Council vetoes.
There's nothing civil about Syria's conflict. US-enlisted death squads wage it. They're imported from dozens of countries. Barrasso didn't explain.
His anti-Russian diatribe included a laundry list of lies. "For more than four years, the Obama administration has capitulated to Mr. Putin's demands and accepted his rebukes."
Dmitry Medvedev was president throughout most of the period. His policies were very conciliatory. He got nothing back in return.
In March 2012, Putin was reelected president. He won overwhelmingly. On May 7, he assumed office. Perhaps Barrasso didn't notice. His Senate record reflects incompetence. He prioritizes war and more of it.
Moscow isn't complying with its own commitment to eliminate its chemical weapons, he said. No corroborating evidence was cited.
Plenty suggests Washington violates Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) provisions repeatedly. It uses chemical, biological and radiological weapons in all its wars. It does so lawlessly.
Barrasso didn't explain. Instead he said:
"Based on the experience of the past four years, the Russians, like the Iranians, are well aware that pretending to go along can buy time until the Obama administration becomes distracted with another issue."
"The US should be prepared for the diplomatic effort on Syria to fall flat and have more effective alternatives ready."
"The president needs to go back to the drawing board and come up with a coherent, realistic Syria policy - one that does not rely on Russia's cooperation."
Barrasso has lawless aggression in mind. Neocon extremists think that way. They support permanent wars.
They endorse waging them against humanity. It bears repeating. They risk launching WW III.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at email@example.com.
His new book is titled "Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity."
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.
Support Free And Honest
Journalism At Rense.com
Enormous Online Archives,
MP3s, Streaming Audio Files,
Highest Quality Live Programs