Zimpapers Logo

Stephen Lendman
They used chemical weapons multiple times before. They’ve been caught red-handed. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain. They feature biased reporting. They ignore hard facts. They do so consistently. They’re in lockstep with US policy. They do so right or wrong. They support regime change. They back direct military intervention. They ignore international law.

They violate core journalistic ethics. They report lies, not truth. They shame themselves in the process. It doesn’t matter. They do it repeatedly. They blame Assad for insurgents’ crimes.

They’ve done it throughout months of conflict. They’ve stepped up anti-government rhetoric now. Previous articles explained.
On August 25, Reuters , CBS News, London’s Guardian and other news sources headlined the same story.

They reported an unnamed senior White House official, saying there’s “very little doubt” Assad used chemical weapons against civilians last week.
US intelligence didn’t base its assessment on credible evidence. It did so on “the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, and (biased) witness accounts.”  The official also said Syria’s government hasn’t let UN investigators inspect the site to give evidence a chance to degrade.

Assad’s fully co-operating. Syrian and UN officials agreed in advance on what sites would be investigated.
On Sunday, Syria agreed to let UN investigators inspect the Ghouta site. It did so saying it’s insurgent controlled territory. Protection can’t be assured.

A typical US response followed. A statement said Syrian permission came too late.
The unnamed official lied. The Sunday response was duplicitous. Clear evidence refutes White House claims. Don’t expect media scoundrels to explain.

On August 25, AP headlined Defence Secretary “Hagel says US still weighing response to Syria.”
He stopped short of discussing specific plans. Asked if it was a matter of when, not if, he said:

“When we have more information, that answer will become clear.” His tone suggested clarity. Obama officials made up their mind earlier. Credible evidence isn’t needed.

“There are risks and consequences for any option that would be used or not used, for action or inaction,” Hagel added. “You have to come to the central point of what would be the objective if you are to pursue an action or not pursue an action. So all those assessments are being made.”

Hagel was deliberately vague. Forked tongue rhetoric can’t disguise longstanding regime change policy.
On August 24, London’s Guardian headlined “Syria: Cameron and Obama move west closer to intervention,” saying:

They spoke on Saturday. Time’s running out, they said. They said it many times before. Maybe this time they mean it. Both leaders “agree that alleged chemical attack requires a ‘serious response.’ “A Number 10 spokesman said:

“The prime minister and President Obama are both gravely concerned by the attack that took place in Damascus on Wednesday and the increasing signs that this was a significant chemical weapons attack carried out by the Syrian regime against its own people.”

“They reiterated that significant use of chemical weapons would merit a serious response from the international community and both have tasked officials to examine all the options.”

UK Foreign Minister William Hague called Wednesday’s incident “a chemical attack by the Assad regime.”
French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said “all the information at our disposal converges to indicate that there was a chemical massacre near Damascus and that the (Assad government) is responsible”.

On August 25, Itar Tass headlined “Pentagon prepared to begin military intervention in Syria,” saying:
It’ll “begin if President Barack Obama takes a decision on it, US Secretary of Defence Chuck Hagel said Sunday.”

“He said the Pentagon had asked the Department of Defence to consider various lines of action that might suit different situations, and the US military (is) ready now to choose any of them.”

A previous article discussed a no longer accessible January 29, 2013 UK Daily Mail  report. It headlined “US ‘backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad’s regime,’ “ saying:

“Leaked e-mails have allegedly proved that the White House gave the green light to a chemical weapons attack in Syria that could be blamed on Assad’s regime and in turn, spur international military action in the devastated country.”

“A report released on Monday contains an e-mail exchange between two senior officials at British-based contractor Britam Defence where a scheme ‘approved by Washington’ is outlined explaining that Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons.”

“Barack Obama made it clear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the US would not tolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.”

“It reads: ‘Phil. We’ve got a new offer. It’s about Syria again. Qataris propose an attractive deal and swear that the idea is approved by Washington.”
“‘We’ll have to deliver a CW to Homs, a Soviet origin g-shell from Libya similar to those that Assad should have. They want us to deploy our Ukrainian personnel that should speak Russian and make a video record. Frankly, I don’t think it’s a good idea but the sums proposed are enormous. Your opinion?’”

“‘Kind regards, David.’”

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].