Sarin gas attack in Syria a false flag; reveals top journalist

Such is the claim of Seymour Hersh, who claims the approval for such a plan came from the White House approved by Hillary Clinton...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-01/seymour-hersh-says-hillary-approved-sending-libyas-sarin-syrian-rebels

 

Hmmmm, we are in the middle of an election campaign ..... while I would not put such shenanigans beyond the machinations of some 3 letter agency involving state is a going a bit far. I would wait for what evidence he comes up with (no emails please, I am an IT security specialist and proving the authenticity of email is an impossible task, they are only ok when nobody comes out and states "its' a fraud").

 

He claims a lot of things...Such as the US was indirectly helping the Assad Regime.
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/22/seymour_hershs_latest_bombshell_us_military

 

Gents thank you for at least commenting. I was afraid that such stories are of no interest anymore.

I can't really comment on it either, aside from that fact that Hersh is a very well respected investigative journalist. Couldn't imagine someone in his shoes risking his reputation on a haunch. Then again anything is possible these days...

Supposedly his source is British intelligence? Has anyone across the pond heard anything on the matter?

 

This is actually true. The CIA helped the "moderates", the Pentagon had enough and actually sent in Green Barrets to fight alongside the Kurds who are battling these "moderates"...... Can't make this stuff up.

Feel free to look into it.

 

Need to see a source on that. I've seen a couple of accounts of such things but they were disproven from what I recall.

 

Nobody is more critical of our current foreign policy than I, particularly our middle east actions and non-actions. And you won't find anyone more who despises Hillary more than I (except her husband, perhaps).

I wanted to do a little research on both the story and Hersh before commenting. First of all, though Hersh broke some great stories when he was young, it seems like he's been trying a little too hard to regain that glory ever since. Even the basic Wiki page on Hersh reveals some glaring journalistic sins. He sometimes crosses the line between journalism and conspiracy theorist. He is only "well respected" by those with an axe to grind.

In this case, he's trying to draw a line between unrelated events and when you take a step back, you can see the huge flaws in his logic. For example, it is almost certainly true that Ambassador Stevens was involved with the CIA in some sort of weapons transfer from Libya to "moderate" rebels in Syria. That's more or less standard ops - small arms and other weapons not traceable to the source (the US in this case) give a nation plausible deniability. However, there is a huge black hole when Hersh says this involved chemical weapons.

We were indeed arming "moderate" rebels who later linked up with ISIS, but you can blame Senators McCain and Graham for that idiocy since they are the ones who shoved that down Obama's throat. The biggest flaw in all of this is the president's famous "red line" which was that if Assad used chemical weapons the US would intervene directly. So, Hersh is saying the US administration set up this elaborate ruse to move these chemical weapons through several nations (including Turkey which has very mixed loyalties), to make it look like Assad crossed the "red line." Then when he did so, Obama embarrassed himself in front of the entire world by backing down and doing nothing?

Obama is a weak president and that event was likely the lowest point in his entire two terms in office. He certainly is weak, but he is not stupid. The whole world laughed at this display of cowardice and it has done enormous damage to every aspect of our foreign policy. We now have no credibility at all among the bad actors across the globe. If one is to believe this story, you have to believe the administration set up this elaborate 'false flag' then shot themselves in the foot when it was time to grab the prize. Does that make sense on any level?

At any rate, pull up the Wiki page on Hersh. It's pretty interesting. He's done some great work now and again (especially in his early years), but he's also put together some stories like this one where he connects dots that don't exist and enters into tinfoil hat country. Certainly, Ghaddafi had chemical weapons and they were certainly moved out through secretive means (no doubt to be destroyed), and it's also quite certain that many conventional weapons were transferred to anti-Assad forces in Syria. Unrelated events, and a pattern that Hersh is guilty of in a number of earlier attempts to regain his fame as a great journalist.

I'm a conservative/libertarian politically, so I 'want' to believe this story on a gut level. Yet, even I can not choke down the huge flaws in the logic. I suspect Mr. Hersh might have crossed the line from opportunistic journalist who bends the truth, to fraud.

 

Thank you for that insightful post Kodiak. I would like to comment on the "red line" issue. While yes Obama is weak, I'm not convinced he fumbled as much as Putin coming to his aid with the whole removal of all Syrian chemical weapons plan. Im certain that had Putin not presented such a plan of action to the UN, the United States would once again be involved in another conflict.

 

I will look for others. This came up when typing "US proxy war with itself".

Here's one from the BBC, and you know how much I love them!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p03k9nbp

 

I think you are misreading that action by Putin. Putin was not "coming to his aid" he was taking advantage of the weakness Obama displayed. Putin had his own reasons to intervene in Syria, a Russian Naval base, but would not do so because Obama had made this "red line" threat against the Assad regime. When Obama displayed his weakness, Putin had a good laugh and then entered into what was now a power vacuum to aid Assad and project Russian power into the region.

Whether Russian intervention is a good or bad thing is another question, but it was directly counter to what Obama wanted (to oust Assad) and only possible because of that embarrassing display of weakness.

 

If that's the article I think it is it was about one of the US aided Arab forces fighting the Kurds but the Kurds were a splinter group not supported by the US and certainly not with US advisors.

 

Everything Obama is doing is weighed and considered,he is an ideological fanatic and his foreign policy is subordinated to and a result of his domestic policy. Foolish ? Yes Weak ? No .Dangerous for us all ? Yes .

 

I see no sign at all of fanaticism in Obama. Lack of understanding yes but hardly fanaticism. His foreign policy appears to me to be more influenced by his beliefs and lack of understanding than his domestic policy (which suffers from similar faults). In this he's much like Carter. He may or may not be "weak" but his foreign policy qualifies as such IMO. As for "dangerous" that's a complex and open issue. I think he could have made better choices but I don't have the data that he has nor am I under the same pressures.

 

Hehe, yes Ofcourse Russia is heavily invested in Syria. Putin intervened with his chemical weapons idea in order to prevent war in Syria. Had he not done that the US would be militarily involved in yet another ME country. Putins action inadvertently helped Obama who did NOT want go to war in Syria. Russia only intervened militarily when Assad asked BRICS for help. After the Paris attacks the UN Security Council uninimously gave Russia a green light in her fight against terrorists in Syria.

 

Here's this one.

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-pentagon-isis-20160327-story.html

 

Foreign policy of the United States is the doing of the Neo Conservatives. Obama is powerless against them. Ray McGovern (former CIA analyst for 27 years) claims Obama is afraid.... Quite an indictment by a man who briefed presidents every morning as they awoke.

 

Fixed that for you...

 

Haha nothing to fix. Both agencies are packed with them and the CIA chief Branon is one as well.

 

That is what you get for wearing your tinfoil hat...That is only one "fringe" belief. Various others - that the Neocons are a CIA "front", Obama is a neocon, etc.

BTW, how thick a tinfoil are you using for you hat?

 

It's the doing of the State Department, which is directly under the executive branch (Obama).

The conservatives in congress may be able to influence events to a small degree, but all the intelligence agencies and the state department are directly under the president, and the heads of those agencies are appointed by the president. Anything that has happened in the last 7 1/2 years is the responsibility of the current president.