The Obama-Kerry Syria Narrative Unravels Completely

AP_barack_obama_syria_press_conference_thg_130831_16x9_992

There have been many, myself included, who viewed with more than a little skepticism the Obama Administration’s instant and unequivocal claim of proof that the Assad regime had used chemical weapons on 21 August, allegedly killing more than 1,400.  Whatever the number of killed, the video of dead children and contaminated victims occupied every network lead news story for more than a week.

Yet, the assertion didn’t make sense.  Why would the Assad regime use chemical weapons and take the chance of being even more of a pariah and losing support of its greatest benefactor, Russia?  Especially when the regime had the initiative almost everywhere and the crisis of the preceding months had passed?  For no tactical advantage?  There was a chance, of course, that the Assad regime had miscalculated in the wake of Obama’s non-response to the “red line” violation in March of 2013.  Or a chance that a field commander used such weapons without regime authorization.  But, especially after Obama’s foolish threat of a “red line” that “changes the calculus” (for which he apparently has little stomach to make good on that threat), use by one of the various Islamist extremist/Al Qaeda-affiliated “rebel” groups seemed every bit as likely.

An opinion piece by Ken Timmerman in The Daily Caller last week went unnoticed by many, but it makes some pretty damning statements regarding the Obama-Kerry casus belli for military action against Syria.

The Obama administration has selectively used intelligence to justify military strikes on Syria, former military officers with access to the original intelligence reports say, in a manner that goes far beyond what critics charged the Bush administration of doing in the run-up to the 2003 Iraq war.

The intercepts of communications that were alluded to by the US media and the White House, which supposedly spelled out regime elements as being responsible for the attack, were not quite as advertised, according to Timmerman.

According to the doctored report, the chemical attack was carried out by the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division of the Syrian Army, an elite unit commanded by Maher al-Assad, the president’s brother.

However, the original communication intercepted by Unit 8200 between a major in command of the rocket troops assigned to the 155th Brigade of the 4th Armored Division, and the general staff, shows just the opposite.

According to the transcript of the original Unit 8200 report, the major “hotly denied firing any of his missiles” and invited the general staff to come and verify that all his weapons were present.

An international version of the selective editing of the Zimmerman police calls, NBC-style, as it were.  Not surprisingly, the Russians were highly skeptical, and then outright dismissive, of the Obama Administration claims.  But there is more, information that has not been presented to the American public by either Obama or any of his foreign policy or intelligence personnel.    This bit of evidence, if it is indeed true, is even more troubling than the intentional doctoring of Israeli communications intercepts to build a false case.

…evidence known to the U.S. intelligence community, and presumably, to Congress.

An Egyptian intelligence report describes a meeting in Turkey between military intelligence officials from Turkey and Qatar and Syrian rebels. One of the participants states, “there will be a game changing event on August 21st” that will “bring the U.S. into a bombing campaign” against the Syrian regime.

The chemical weapons strike on Moudhamiya, an area under rebel control, took place on August 21. “Egyptian military intelligence insists it was a combined Turkish/Qatar/rebel false flag operation,” said a source familiar with the report.

This, of course, would not be the first time that the Obama Administration and its officials in the State Department have made public statements they knew not to be true, in order to deflect blame and obfuscate an ugly truth.   The attack on the Benghazi consulate, a year ago this coming Wednesday, was attributed to the actions of a spontaneous demonstration by Libyan protesters when then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and now-SecState Susan Rice (then-UN Ambassador) knew good and well what they were saying to the American people and the world was simply not true.
Now, Obama finds himself painted into a corner by his own ill-considered rhetoric and the emphatic assertions of his Vice President (“no doubt” about Assad regime use of chemical weapons) and his Secretary of State.   Congressional leaders on both sides of the aisle should recognize the titanic blunder committed by President Obama, and stop doubling down on his incompetence and that of his foreign policy team in a vain attempt to maintain “credibility”.
Worse for Obama than the Assad regime not being credibly linked to a chemical weapons release is the alternative, is that “rebel” groups may have gotten their hands on some of the Syrian stockpile and have used those weapons themselves, doing so in order to bring the US and other Western nations into the Syrian Civil War to overthrow Assad and allow them to establish yet another anti-Western Islamist regime in a strategic country in the Middle East.   One has to wonder if the harsh and uncompromising words used to describe the Assad regime will be employed to describe the anti-regime forces whose hands may be very dirty, as dirty at least as the regime’s, in this civil war.
The entire of the Obama Administration’s case for military action against Syria is collapsing.   What we were told was true, likely wasn’t.   Obama and Kerry both also likely knew that.   I will say it again.  Our foreign policy is in shambles.
H/T to Fran D!