I don’t believe I made a value judgement, and I’d like to see the Fox News fact-check (if it exists) to compare it to the others.
Trump’s counter-claim is a bit specious to start with. He is demanding that Hilary show “the video” that ISIS is using to recruit people with that features him, whereas Clinton never claimed there was any such device – only that ISIS was using his words.
Really it’s an old (and hypocritical) debate trick: if you make a claim that other people question, vaguely wave your hands at the subject and say that the low-level “facts” don’t matter, only the general idea. But if someone else says something questionable, loudly demand that they produce reams of documentation and pronounce them to be liars of the highest order if such a thing is impossible to procure.
Like a long-form birth certificate, for instance.
Timex
3784
It’s worth mentioning that we were able to test the Sarin used in the attack, and compare it to the Syrian Armies stockpiles. The signatures didn’t match.
This isn’t true at all. Indeed, it’s patently false. Consensus is that the weapons used in those attacks came from the Syrian government’s weapons stockpile.
Like I said, everyone other than Russia thinks that Assad performed those attacks with chemical weapons. You seem to be ignoring everything and listening to Russia, but to do so is absurd, because Russia isn’t even remotely trustworthy.
From your link.
The UNHRC commission also found that the Sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore “the same unique hallmarks” as the Sarin used in the Ghouta attack and indicated that the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army’s stockpile.
The signature from the Kha al-Asal attack were the same as Ghouta.
They do not claim that the signature was the same as the Syrian stockpiles.
As mentioned above, Syrian culpability is highly speculative. It assumes that because the Syrian Army possesses sarin, that they are responsible. As we’ve learned, multiple rebel groups not only have access to sarin, they’ve used it on the battlefield.
If that was true we would have attacked Syria in August of 2013.
Strollen
3786
Lemon you are a smart guy, and your military background means I give you more credibility on military issues than most posters. So when you first started posted that Assad wasn’t behind the chemical attacks, I googled the hell of it, thinking maybe conventional wisdom and myself are wrong.
However, I haven’t seen any credible evidence other than stuff from Russia that is the case.
Timex
3787
The signature from the Kha al-Asal attack were the same as Ghouta.
They do not claim that the signature was the same as the Syrian stockpiles.
What are you talking about? In the words you quoted they claim exactly that.
“the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army’s stockpile.”
If that was true we would have attacked Syria in August of 2013.
Except that we didn’t want to get in another ground war. That’s the point. We drew a line in the sand, it was crossed, and then we moved the line to be, “if you turn over all your chemical weapons we won’t attack.” Syria then did exactly that, and we didn’t attack.
Again, it was this turning over of weapons that resulted in the US not attacking, not some belief that Assad wasn’t responsible. No one believes otherwise, other than the Russians. And frankly, the Russians don’t believe that either, it’s simply what they said.
Let’s be very exact with our language.
The UNHRC commission also found that the Sarin used in the Khan al-Asal attack bore “the same unique hallmarks” as the Sarin used in the Ghouta attack
They established that the Sarin in the two attacks came from the same recipe.
But that does not not tie the SAA to the attack. That assertion
“the perpetrators likely had access to chemicals from the Syrian Army’s stockpile.”
Comes from the Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (2/2014) and is rooted in this conclusion - and this conclusion alone.
link
But we know that ISIS, among other groups, have weaponized Sarin. Thus the UNHRC conclusion is very difficult to sustain.
That was why Obama argued for an air campaign though, it was a way for the US to punish the Syrian government without getting involved on the ground.
The problem with the Ghouta attack is the logic. In 2012 the government was under serious stress, and many felt a rebel victory was likely. By March of 2013 it was a very different story. The SAA, with help from Hezbollah, had turned things around and regained the the offensive. It was now the rebels who appeared to be fighting for air. So why use chemical weapons now, right when things are going well? And at the very moment (to a day) that the UN deployed an inspector team in country? Perhaps it was a slip-up, or a rogue general taking control of the arsenal, but where that might happen once (and result in firing squads) it certainly wouldn’t happen seven times. And there would also be a chain of evidence, from human sources, intercepted orders, and satellite photos. But those didn’t appear to exist.
Seymour Herch has provided the best account of what happened in August.
Obama’s change of mind had its origins at Porton Down, the defence laboratory in Wiltshire. British intelligence had obtained a sample of the sarin used in the 21 August attack and analysis demonstrated that the gas used didn’t match the batches known to exist in the Syrian army’s chemical weapons arsenal.
Link
Analysts are taught to throw out the source, as strange as that may sound, and look at the material itself. Pravda may have been a useless rag nine out of ten times. But in that tenth article, the Soviets might be trying to tell us something useful. With that said, It’s important to ask if Hersch has the access to justify his conclusions. The answer to that is yes. The second is, does his story make sense? Do the details hold up, and in this case the answer is largely yes. He presents a cohesive and logical narrative that accounts for the the problems with original allegations. I also know one of the sources in the piece, a retired officer, which helped assuage my concerns. This isn’t one of Hersch’s screwups.
I was in a car accident shortly before OCS which unfortunately scuppered my chance at uniformed service.
Timex
3790
Seriously, I’m not seeing anything at all in anything you are presenting which causes any questioning of the opinion of the entire international community that Assad performed the act. And originally you had made the statement that the intelligence community believed someone else had done it, but that is clearly untrue. The consensus is that those attacks were made by Assad, and the evidence shows that the sarin used almost certainly came from the Syrian stockpile.
The only alternative story offered has been by Syria and the Russians, suggesting that the rebels somehow stole sarin from the Syrian army, and then used it on their own people. But there is no evidence of such a thing at all. Given that such a story is extremely far fetched, and not supported by any evidence, it’s much more reasonable to believe that Russia and Syria are simply lying about such things.
In other matters - the FEC Chair speaks out:
Some of my colleagues seek to excuse this failure by arguing that the Commission was intended to deadlock 3-3; a majority vote of 4 is required to take any significant action. In effect they claim that the Commission they are charged with leading was in fact intended to never do anything. This is absurd.
Spawn of Watergate: Congress created the FEC in response to Watergate, specifically because that scandal demonstrated the need for an independent enforcement agency that would ensure the effective disclosure of political campaign funding and spending. Congress designed the bipartisan structure of the Commission to prevent partisan targeting, not to paralyze the agency. But when three Commissioners repeatedly and consistently vote against enforcing the law, paralysis is the result.
And this is the root of the “IRS targeting conservatives” meme. The rules aren’t being enforced and are outdated, but cannot be updated, and when the IRS tried, they made a mess of it (as can happen in large bureaucracies).
The only evidence (verifiable assertion) that supported the claim was the vector analysis that the New York Times did.
The retracted that article in December of 2013. The rockets didn’t have the range that the article claimed, which put the launch sites within rebel territory. Everything else has been unsupported assertions.
Take a look at the August 30th White Paper. It’s really thin. Tellingly, none of the opinions are attributed to the intelligence community.
They refused to sign off on it.
Seriously, I’m not seeing anything at all in anything you are presenting which causes any questioning of the opinion of the entire international community that Assad performed the act.
The administration isn’t about to release a public report saying that the president was wrong - if that’s what you’re asking for.
Timex
3793
Well, like I said, your statement that the intelligence community thought Assad didn’t do it is false. That is not even remotely true, as the ONLY nations making such a claim are Russia and Syria.
Whether you want to believe some case where the rebels stole sarin from Assad and then killed their own people as part of some false flag operation, despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, is your business. It’s not really related to the Presidential election at this point though.
And US intelligence, albeit not on the record.
rebels stole sarin from Assad
They manufactured it themselves.
despite a complete lack of supporting evidence, is your business.
And where is the evidence to support Syrian culpability?
Timex
3795
No, not US intelligence. Saying that they are secretly making such a statement, but not on the record, is a silly claim.
I’d suggest reading the article.
Timex
3797
Dude, Seymore Hersh’s article is not proof supporting your claim. It’s a singular voice that represents an opinion, which is not substantiated, that goes against the majority opinion. US intelligence agencies do not have the opinion that the opposition forces are responsible for the attack. All Hersh had was a statement that suggested some members of the intelligence community believes the opposition groups were capable of producing sarin.
Not only does that come a ridiculously far way from proving that opposition groups murdered themselves with sarin gas, which just happened to match the expected makeup of the sarin produced by the Syrian army, but it’s generally regarded as a conspiracy theory.
You can believe it if you want, but when you then go and suggest that intelligence communities held that belief, you are no longer in the realm of reality. You are in crazy Russian propaganda land.
Miramon
3798
Yeah. Hersh is a great man on account of past accomplishments, but he went way off reservation years ago and I no longer think he’s trustworthy. And even if the CIA put out the information in a press release, surely you can’t believe anything an intelligence or security agency says or leaks. They are supposed to have no political interest, so therefore anything attested to by “intelligence sources” is going to be policy-driven propaganda or disinformation. Finally Russian news sources are no more reliable now than they were in the cold war: less if anything because they’re more erratic.
Hersh is nuts. I don’t know when he went nuts, but I noticed it early last decade. He’s far from a reliable source.
Timex
3800
What’s funny is that he’s apparently written numerous even more hilariously crazy things since.
We have the idea that they stages Osama bin Laden’s death, and now that the joint chiefs secretly committed treason and worked with foreign nations Syria and Russia to fight against ISIS.
And just like the piece about how the Syrian opposition secretly murdered themselves with chemical weapons, this is completely unsourced.
I’m trying to understand the current Republican fascination with the phrase “politically correct”. It seems like it came up a dozen times in the last debate, and I can’t read a quote from any of the ® candidates without seeing it tossed out – including this fun one from Jeb (talking about Trump): “He is the antidote in some people’s minds to the politically correct, divisive policies of Barack Obama.”
How is political correctness divisive for Christ’s sake? They are mutually exclusive things.
It is just a dog whistle for those folks who are upset about gay marriage and who have the scareds about brown people?
