Casus belli collage of shame - Syria

[Tesseract]

Seymour Hersh article exposes Obama's case for war on Syria as yet another Iraqesque collection of lies, data picking, willful ignorance and media compliance.

My brief summary of some important points made by the article:

- US gov ignored intelligence assessments that Al-Nusra had Sarin capability
- US gov ignored US intelligence that Iraq chemial weapons expert was operating with Rebels in Damascus.
- Claims of preparatory actions of Syrian chemical weapons units were cherry picked from an abundance of recorded intercepts after the fact, including routine operations of such units.
-Claims of rocket flight path of 9 km are completely wrong (rocket more likely capable of 2 km flight)
-Claims that rocket found at scene same as used by Syrian forces is a lie - it is the wrong size.
- Sensors on the ground did not offer any indication of chemical weapons activity- even though the same sensors had previously successfully detected chemical weapons drills.
- Death toll of 1429 according to US gov (based off youtube) - ground estimates put it at around 500.
- Total disinterest by the MSM in publishing anything that might not support the US gov narrative.
- Why did Obama really cancel the military strike that he had announced would take place?
- Lack of a substantial case against the Syrian gov is conspicuous.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2013/12/08/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin

[Tesla_WTC_Solution]

When I was a small child, Reader's Digest ran an article that claimed Iraq had been the world's biggest investor in biotechnology during a certain pre-Gulf War year.
By many magnitudes. I am not sure where they got their info. I know it's a conservative magazine, but it does have a lot of interesting and sometimes alternative views.

Now, I don't really claim to understand the relationship between Saddam and Reagan, as I was only a baby when that was going on, but it seemed weird that the US under the Bushes would suddenly turn on a former ally/puppet (Saddam)... it seems as if Saddam's local competitors won out in terms of weapons deals with the US and UK -- i.e. we lost interest in him as a customer because he was doing unpopular (obvious) things to his own people (well, the indigenous Kurds).

Many people think that Iraq had no weapons, but personally, I do doubt that -- however, our gov't probably knew they weren't in Iraq anymore, or worse, our gov't moved them and lied about Saddam moving them (ouch).

I really hate what has happened to the Iraqi people and their infrastructure, and of course, what happened to Saddam was pretty gross. But it is very interesting to know, what happened to all the stuff Saddam supposedly had?

If it was a vaccine stockpile, for instance, someone would have stolen it and sold it to a third-world country whether or not the medicine was still good.
It stands to reason that when weapons are seized, rather than legally destroy them and document it, countries with high operating costs would consider selling them off on the black market, us citizens none the wiser.

That's how alphabet agencies and the like get some of their money.

p.s. wasn't Saddam supposedly stockpiling anthrax and bot tox?
It's amazing how ill the US and UK troops became when they were made to take the anthrax vaccine....

Saddam kind of got blamed for all that when in fact ... anthrax is a really crappy weapon unless it's being dropped right on your head (which is what would happen to ground troops invading).