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

bananas

(27,509 posts)
Fri Apr 21, 2017, 10:42 AM Apr 2017

The Chemical-Weapons Attack In Syria: Is There a Place for Skepticism?

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria-is-there-a-place-for-skepticism/

The Chemical-Weapons Attack In Syria: Is There a Place for Skepticism?

The American media has excluded dissenting expert opinions in its rush to embrace Trump’s war on Syria.

By James Carden
APRIL 19, 2017

<snip>

The Nation spoke to Postol over the weekend.

“What I think is now crystal clear,” he said, “is that the White House report was fabricated and it certainly did not follow the procedures it claimed to employ.”

“My best guess at the moment is that this was an extremely clumsy and ill-conceived attempt to cover up the fact that Trump attacked Syria without any intelligence evidence that Syria was in fact the perpetrator of the attack…. It may be,” he continued, “that the White House staff was worried that this could eventually come out—a reckless president acting without regard to the nation’s security, risking an inadvertent escalation and confrontation with Russia, and a breakdown in cooperation with Russia that would cripple our efforts to defeat the Islamic State.”

“If that is not an impeachable offense,” Postol told The Nation, “then I do not know what is.”

<snip>

4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Chemical-Weapons Attack In Syria: Is There a Place for Skepticism? (Original Post) bananas Apr 2017 OP
or government's bipartisan track record of manipulating intel in favor of military action means... yurbud Apr 2017 #1
Since we're already there Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #3
75% of the time Blue_Tires Apr 2017 #2
Yes, and shame on anyone who automatically buys the official govt narrative Fast Walker 52 Apr 2017 #4

yurbud

(39,405 posts)
1. or government's bipartisan track record of manipulating intel in favor of military action means...
Fri Apr 21, 2017, 01:23 PM
Apr 2017

there is little reason to believe much more than that people might have died in Syria and chemical weapons might have been involved--and that more people in Syria will definitely die as a result of that story being told.

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
3. Since we're already there
Fri Apr 21, 2017, 06:24 PM
Apr 2017

what good does it do to manipulate intel now? It's not like we need a justification... And it's not like Trump is doing anything other than puffing himself up (you will note that there were other chemical attacks before this that Trump ignored)...

Blue_Tires

(55,445 posts)
2. 75% of the time
Fri Apr 21, 2017, 05:08 PM
Apr 2017

Last edited Fri Apr 21, 2017, 06:29 PM - Edit history (1)

whenever there is a "question" headline, the answer is "NO"

Let's not distort the issue with truther nutbar speculation... Remember that's an old Russian trick...

 

Fast Walker 52

(7,723 posts)
4. Yes, and shame on anyone who automatically buys the official govt narrative
Fri Apr 21, 2017, 08:14 PM
Apr 2017

many smart people are very sketpical

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Editorials & Other Articles»The Chemical-Weapons Atta...