Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 07:15 PM Sep 2013

"A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War" -- Robert Parry (Long Time Kerry Supporter)Has Questions

A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War
August 30, 2013

Exclusive: President George W. Bush misled the world on Iraq’s WMD, but Bush’s bogus case for war at least had details that could be checked, unlike what the Obama administration released Friday on Syria’s alleged chemical attacks – no direct quotes, no photographic evidence, no named sources, nothing but “trust us,” says Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry

The Obama administration’s three-page white paper making the case that the Syrian government used chemical weapons on Aug. 21 is even skimpier than the “evidence” that George W. Bush’s team put out to “prove” that Iraq was hiding WMD in 2003.

The white paper against Syria is noteworthy in that it lacks any specifics that can be assessed independently, in contrast to, say, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous presentation to the UN Security Council which included intercepted quotes from Iraqi officials and satellite photographs of suspected Iraqi WMD locations.


U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry delivers remarks on Syria at the Department of State in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 30, 2013. [State Department photo]
As it turned out, Powell had misquoted the Iraqi officials to make their intercepted comments appear more sinister (but at least the State Department posted the actual transcripts online so Powell could be fact-checked) and the satellite photos ended up not proving anything at all.

But there was at least a presentation that – however misleading – didn’t simply call on the American people and the world to “trust us.” That is pretty much all that the Obama administration is saying in its indictment of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad for allegedly deploying deadly chemical weapons last week.

The white paper states: “The United States Government assesses with high confidence that the Syrian government carried out a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs on August 21, 2013. We further assess that the regime used a nerve agent in the attack. These all-source assessments are based on human, signals, and geospatial intelligence as well as a significant body of open source reporting.”

But the white paper offers no verifiable details to support any of its conclusions. For instance, it states: “We have intelligence that leads us to assess that Syrian chemical weapons personnel – including personnel assessed to be associated with the SSRC [the Scientific Studies and Research Center, which oversees Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal] – were preparing chemical munitions prior to the attack.


“In the three days prior to the attack, we collected streams of human, signals and geospatial intelligence that reveal regime activities that we assess were associated with preparations for a chemical weapons attack. Syrian chemical weapons personnel were operating in the Damascus suburb of ‘Adra from Sunday, August 18 until early in the morning on Wednesday, August 21 near an area that the regime uses to mix chemical weapons, including sarin.

“On August 21, a Syrian regime element prepared for a chemical weapons attack in the Damascus area, including through the utilization of gas masks. Our intelligence sources in the Damascus area did not detect any indications in the days prior to the attack that opposition affiliates were planning to use chemical weapons.”

Yet, despite these seemingly incriminating assertions, no supporting evidence is cited: no satellite or other photos of these military movements were released, no names of individuals mentioned, no communications intercepts published. Just assertions attributed to “sources” with no way to assess their reliability.

In 2003, Secretary Powell also cited “sources” to buttress his case that Iraq was hiding WMD – and only after the Iraq War was underway did the public learn that these “sources” had code names like “Curve Ball” or were connected to self-interested outfits like the Iraqi National Congress. [For details, see Neck Deep.]

Damning Claim

Perhaps, the Obama administration’s most damning claim on Friday was that “We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations.”

However, again, the identity of the “senior official” is not included, nor is the direct quote cited. Given the history of the U.S. government doctoring quotes to make a case – besides Powell in 2003, the Reagan administration also did it in accusing the Soviet Union of intentionally shooting down KAL Flight 007 in 1983 – you might have thought the Obama administration would take pains to include the actual words and put them in their proper context. But no.

MORE AT:
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/30/a-dodgy-dossier-on-syrian-war/

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"A Dodgy Dossier on Syrian War" -- Robert Parry (Long Time Kerry Supporter)Has Questions (Original Post) KoKo Sep 2013 OP
I'm beginning to believe there are some claims by Israel, and maybe some overhead heat traces, but leveymg Sep 2013 #1
Agree..~ Ray McGovern has a long article up questioning.. KoKo Sep 2013 #2
Thanks for the info. Hang in there. Peace. leveymg Sep 2013 #3

leveymg

(36,418 posts)
1. I'm beginning to believe there are some claims by Israel, and maybe some overhead heat traces, but
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 07:47 PM
Sep 2013

that's it for technical evidence. Oh, yes, the NSA has everyone's phones bugged and tweets recorded.

The rest of it (casualty figures) is based upon opposition statements, which are probably not verifiable. They really need to release all this stuff - the longer they refuse to declassify, the more the suspicion grows that they've just made shit up.

KoKo

(84,711 posts)
2. Agree..~ Ray McGovern has a long article up questioning..
Wed Sep 4, 2013, 07:55 PM
Sep 2013

Somebody posted article from "Counterpunch" (unfortunately without link) questioning and David Lindorff has article questioning over at Common Dreams. And, I read here that Juan Cole has reversed his position on support for Strike (maybe the lack of evidence in the "White Paper" convinced him). Oxfam Rep. on Democracy Now was questioning the statistics of the "gassed/dead" and I've seen that a Syrian Group who monitors casualties of War in Syria has disputed the body count along with "Doctors Without Borders.

Hopefully in the next few days more questions about the Sourcing of the White Paper that Kerry refers to will come out. But, it doesn't look like Obama Admin is ready to handle any "questions." They are "hell bent" on getting this done as quick as they can.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"A Dodgy Dossier on ...