General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSeymour Hersh Does It Again! Killing In The Name Of
Who were the culprits for the chemical weapons attack in Syria on September 2013?
What was really going on in Benghazi when Libyan terrorists killed Ambassador Stevens and others? (Image)
Why is the United States covering up and collaborating with a moral leper, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan?
Seymour Hersh answers these questions in his April 6 article The Red Line and the Rat Line - Seymour M. Hersh on Obama, Erdogan and the Syrian rebels April 6, London Review of Books
Hersh's latest article is a follow up to Whose Sarin, December 13, 2013, also published by the London Review of Books. In December, Hersh went behind the scenes to debunk the claims by the Obama administration that it had a slam-dunk case against the Syrian government for the August 2013 chemical weapons attack on civilians near Damascus, Syria. Despite the best efforts to keep the story out of the news and the spirited response of neoconservative and Obama trolls, the story was well read in the United States thanks to the Internet.
more...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Seymour-Hersh-Does-It-Agai-by-Michael-Collins-Benghazi-Attack_Post-gaddafi-Libya_President-Barack-Obama-POTUS_Recep-Tayyip-Erdogan-140407-844.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)Response to Mnemosyne (Reply #1)
G_j This message was self-deleted by its author.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . he must have spoken to someone who knew someone who once worked in the mailroom of the Cato Institute! 
MisterP
(23,730 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)holy crap.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts). . . We had a naive President being played/used as a tool by the Turks, and the President himself is surrounded by a bunch of yes men who are afraid to contradict him. Greeeeeeeat!
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)But even that picture is incomplete without the neo-cons who apparently are the only ones prepared to give the President advice on foreign policy. Kerry apparently either agrees with the neo-cons or is one of those who cannot get up the nerve to give the President bad news.
A couple of months ago there were reports that no one told the President what that the Obamacare sign-up website was a technical disaster area. That disaster gave opponents of the plan an incredible amount of ammunition and convinced many people who could benefit from Obamacare to not even bother to check out the website once its technical performance improved.
This makes me more nervous about the White House's handling of the Ukrainian situation. Having embedded neo-cons in the State Department's civil service ranks is one thing, but this really is worse.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)The leaked phone conversation with the Turks plotting the Syria False Flag mentioned Kerry at the end of the conversations but it was unclear as to whether Kerry was aware of the attempts by Turkey (he was always in on the discussions) or if he heard about it recently and was inquiring. Didn't see any discussion more about the Kerry reference and many DU'ers dismissed the whole thing as fake or something not worth discussion.
Kerry's determination about how we needed to immediately have military action in Syria seemed to be at odds with what we've know about Obama's caution. I never saw Kerry as a NeoCon...but, then there's probably much we don't know about who influences Kerry these days. Still...it seemed almost as if Obama was being led by attack dog Kerry at that time for those of us who watched it all.
Maybe Obama doesn't want to KNOW what he doesn't want to KNOW so that he's out of whatever comes down the road with the NeoCon failures. As Reagan didn't know about "Iran Contra" so it seems keeping the President out of the loop is still ongoing.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I'm sure that happens all of the time with politicians. It certainly happens with many people, it's just that as President of the United States, that particular blind spot can be dangerous for the whole world.
Thank heavens he didn't go through with the attack. It would have been extremely ugly for our country, for our military and disastrous to the Middle East.
amandabeech
(9,893 posts)He and Edwards (who I liked at the time) inspired me to get off my duff and do some work. I had considered myself retired after a big effort in '92 with Tom Harkin, but I thought that those two would have been light years ahead of shrub and darth. And compared to them, I still do, even with respect to Edwards.
But today's Kerry seems to be all over the place and no place at the same time. Granted, he faces more hot problems that usual right now. Maybe his fixation on fixing the Israel/Palestine problem leaves him with insufficient mental energy to focus on other things. (The I's and the P's don't seem ready to put down their guns yet).
There have been some stories that the President relies on a very small group of advisers--maybe too small. Perhaps Kerry really isn't in that inner circle and thus ends up on the fringes of foreign policy in the making.
On edit: I checked a short list of conservative news sites this pm, and there was no mention of this piece. Small favors, I guess.
markpkessinger
(8,392 posts)amandabeech
(9,893 posts)Now, if I could only get the President's ear. 
Holly_Hobby
(3,033 posts)
ozone_man
(4,825 posts)2banon
(7,321 posts)Does a great summary of the article.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)and was prepared to launch a devastating attack on Syria. And here I thought that he was getting less hawkish.
Correct me if I am wrong, though, but hasn't it now been established that Assad did use sarin gas?
autorank
(29,456 posts)Actually, the certainty that Assad forces fired rockets has been shaken badly. This summary of a study uses White House materials to show that White House claims were wrong. The talking points were that the rocket trajectory could be traced back to the mountains in Damascus where the Syrian Republican Guard and Presidential Palace are located. The study showed that the maximum flight path of the rockets was 1.75 to 2.25 km for the two targets. The maps showed that this range was all within rebel controlled territory and there was no government controlled territory within the 2.25 km maximum flight path for the main strike at Zamalka. The study doesn't exclude the Syrian government. Rather, it seriously questions the initial certainty that the White House displayed (given the physical impossibility of a launch from around 8 km away).
The Hersh piece adds more weight to doubt the Assad did it claim given the findings reported from British intelligence.
Given the lack of coverage (although there was some - McClatchy Jan 15), it makes sense to assume that the issue was settled.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)I guess the Founders were correct in supposing that the Congress and not the President should make decisions about whether to involve the nation in war. As Madison put it, "Those who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or concluded.” Madison believed that under the US Constitution, the President has the power to resort to military force on his own initiative only in the face of an imminent threat.
Candidate Obama suggested that he agreed with Madison about who has the power to involve the nation in war. In 2007, he said, “The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.”
But like all good power-hungry executives, he now seems to have changed his mind. A few months ago in reference to Syria he said: “As commander in chief, I always preserve the right and the responsibility to act on behalf of America’s national security. I do not believe that I was required to take this to Congress, but I did not take this to Congress just because it’s an empty exercise. I think it’s important to have Congress’ support on it.” He also said: “So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.”
It's hard to imagine a clearer case of a 180 degree turn.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)among other credible sources. RT, right again about World News.
Now Seymour Hersch needs to be discredited I suppose.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question to those who have slammed just about everyone now who traditionally were considered to be reliable sources 'where should we get our news'? No answer.
Thanks to all the world news media who reported, and were either ignored or smeared, this news months ago.
And of course now that the Turks have been caught planning yet another orchestrate atttack on their own property in Syria, this is even more believable.
And yet, the news sources that correctly reported these stories are not considered 'credible' by a few on DU while the Corporate Media apparently is!
Thanks Seymour, I wondered why we had not been hearing from him. In case anyone forgets, he was one of the first investigative reporters to bring the torture at Abu Ghraib to public attention, but it was not until a Whistle Blower released the actual photos, that he was proven to be correct.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)
autorank
(29,456 posts)There is one action item that should come from this article. Congress and the White House need to release the "annex" that Hersh referenced that indicated the weapons transfer from Libya to Syria. Hersh's source said that this was clear in the "annex" and that the document indicated the consulate in Benghazi was solely for weapons transfer. There's a lot more there, I'm sure. Let's see what we paid for and find out the truth. What a concept
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I don't really know what else to say.
this is pretty important.
reddread
(6,896 posts)Why am I always so disappointed when that diminutive echo chamber choir goes silent?
Eunuchs.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I do. This could have spiraled into a mess we as a country couldn't get ourselves out of.
autorank
(29,456 posts)Let's hope she's as sensible about foreign policy as she is on economic policy!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)that has sensible covered in every category. I could be wrong, but I don't think she does anything without deep consideration, and it is guided by a conscience (which is, in many cases, more important than just rationalizing).
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I followed her when was the Special Inspector General for TARP. She was very bright and tough. Good practice, getting pushed around by people who thought she was a light weight. They were wrong.
She's got to come out as strongly anti war, anti foreign meddline and adventures. If she does, I'll do as much as I can for her campaign.
Oilwellian
(12,647 posts)It was Putin who encouraged and helped Obama dial it back.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)with documentation, witnesses, video etc, from credible sources, especially RT who reported frequently on exactly what Seymour Hersch is now verifying. When you have slammed the 'source' in favor of our Corporate Media silence on the issue, it's a bit embarrassing to try to explain that.
Thankfully many people do not consider the Corporate Media to be credible sources and are increasingly turning to other sources like RT for factual reports on news such as this.
reddread
(6,896 posts)is seeing the mass discrediting of the American propaganda press. Sure, they lean towards calling it nicer names, and many are addicted to the liars lies while dialing up their ratings like good self screwing liberals, and many like to blame the lying employee on the screen rather than the people who pay them to say them.
The one thing that seems to be trending positively here is the mass dismissal of the demons on the cable box.
If only they would cut that cord.
then they could change the tune, if nothing else.
autorank
(29,456 posts)Do you know if any of the crowd there has covered this? I have not had the chance to check it out.
reddread
(6,896 posts)autorank
(29,456 posts)Excellent avatar.
leftstreet
(36,097 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Phillip Knightley
The Guardian, Thursday 4 October 2001 05.47 EDT
The way wars are reported in the western media follows a depressingly predictable pattern: stage one, the crisis; stage two, the demonisation of the enemy's leader; stage three, the demonisation of the enemy as individuals; and stage four, atrocities. At the moment we are at stages two and three: efforts to show that not only Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are fanatical and cruel but that most Afghans - even many Muslims - are as well. We are already through stage one, the reporting of a crisis which negotiations appear unable to resolve. Politicians, while calling for diplomacy, warn of military retaliation. The media reports this as "We're on the brink of war", or "War is inevitable".
News coverage concentrates on the build up of military force, and prominent columnists and newspaper editorials urge war. But there are usually sizable minorities of citizens concerned that all avenues for peace have not been fully explored and although the mainstream media ignores or plays down their protests, these have to be dampened down unless they gain strength.
We now enter stage two of the pattern - the demonisation of the enemy's leader. Comparing the leader with Hitler is a good start because of the instant images that Hitler's name provokes. So when George Bush Sr likened Iraq's takeover of Kuwait with the Nazi blitzkrieg in Europe in the 1930s, the media quickly took up the theme. Saddam Hussein was painted as a second Hitler, hated by his own people and despised in the Arab world. Equally, in the Kosovo conflict, the Serbs were portrayed as Nazi thugs intent on genocide and words like "Auschwitz-style furnaces" and "Holocaust" were used.
The crudest approach is to suggest that the leader is insane. Saddam Hussein was "a deranged psychopath", Milosevic was mad, and the Spectator recently headlined an article on Osama bin Laden: "Inside the mind of the maniac". Those who publicly question any of this can expect an even stronger burst of abuse. In the Gulf war they were labelled "friends of terrorists, ranters, nutty, hypocrites, animals, barbarians, mad, traitors, unhinged, appeasers and apologists". The Mirror called peace demonstrators "misguided, twisted individuals always eager to comfort and support any country but their own. They are a danger to all us - the enemy within." Columnist Christopher Hitchens, in last week's Spectator article, Damn the doves, says that intellectuals who seek to understand the new enemy are no friends of peace, democracy or human life.
The third stage in the pattern is the demonisation not only of the leader but of his people. The simplest way of doing this is the atrocity story. The problem is that although many atrocity stories are true - after all, war itself is an atrocity - many are not.
Take the Kuwaiti babies story. Its origins go back to the first world war when British propaganda accused the Germans of tossing Belgian babies into the air and catching them on their bayonets. Dusted off and updated for the Gulf war, this version had Iraqi soldiers bursting into a modern Kuwaiti hospital, finding the premature babies ward and then tossing the babies out of incubators so that the incubators could be sent back to Iraq.
CONTINUED...
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2001/oct/04/socialsciences.highereducation
autorank
(29,456 posts)Great piece by Knightley. Ironic, isn't it, that he's describing the type of editorial manipulation that the Guardian carries out.
