TEHRAN (FNA)- Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh
said a British intelligence report shows that the sarin gas that
terrorist used in Syria didn’t come from Assad’s stockpiles, but in fact
Hillary Clinton former US secretary of state approved the chemical
banned agent being delivered from Libya to Syrian Rebels.
Hersh
in two previous articles in the London Review of Books "Whose Sarin?"
and "The Red Line and the Rat Line" has reported that the Obama
Administration falsely blamed the government of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad
for the sarin gas attack that Obama was trying to use as an excuse to
invade Syria, Global Research reported.
Hersh also said that a secret agreement in 2012
was reached between the Obama Administration and the leaders of Turkey,
Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, to set up a sarin gas attack and blame it on
Assad so that the US could invade and overthrow Assad. "By the terms of
the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and
Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting
arms from Gaddafi’s arsenals into Syria".
Hersh didn’t say whether these "arms" included the
precursor chemicals for making sarin which were stockpiled in Libya,
but there have been multiple independent reports that Libya’s Gaddafi
possessed such stockpiles, and also that the US Consulate in Benghazi
Libya was operating a "rat line" for Gaddafi’s captured weapons into
Syria through Turkey.
So, Hersh isn’t the only reporter who has been
covering this. Indeed, the investigative journalist Christoph Lehmann
headlined on 7 October 2013, "Top US and Saudi Officials responsible for
Chemical Weapons in Syria" and reported, on the basis of very different
sources than Hersh used, that "Evidence leads directly to the White
House, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey, CIA
Director John Brennan, Saudi Intelligence Chief Prince Bandar, and Saudi
Arabia´s Interior Ministry."
And, as if that weren’t enough, even the
definitive analysis of the evidence that was performed by two leading US
analysts, the Lloyd-Postal report, concluded that, "The US Government’s
Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and
After the August 21 Attack can not be possibly correct". Obama has
clearly been lying.
However, now, for the first time, Hersh has
implicated Hillary Clinton directly in this "rat line". In an interview
with Alternet.org, Hersh was asked about the
then-US-Secretary-of-State’s role in the Benghazi Libya US consulate’s
operation to collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles and send them
through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on
Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as the US had
invaded Libya to eliminateGaddafi.
Hersh said,"that ambassador who was killed, he was
known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get
in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was
meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was
certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on.
And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not
talking to the boss, by some channel. "
This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State
Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for
the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.
The interviewer then asked that in the book
(Hersh’s The Killing of Osama bin Laden, just out) you quote a former
intelligence official as saying that the White House rejected 35 target
sets for the planned US invasion of Syria provided by the Joint Chiefs
as being insufficiently painful to the Assad regime.
Later the White House proposed a target list that
included civilian infrastructure. What would the toll to civilians have
been if the White House’s proposed strike had been carried out?
Hersh responded by saying that the US tradition in
that regard has long been to ignore civilian casualties; i.e.,
collateral damage of US attacks is okay or even desired (so as to
terrorize the population into surrender) – not an ‘issue’, except,
perhaps, for the PR people.
The interviewer asked why Obama is so obsessed to
replace Assad in Syria, since the power vacuum that would ensue would
open Syria up to all kinds of jihadi groups, and Hersh replied that not
only he, but the Joint Chiefs of Staff, nobody could figure out why.
He said, our policy has always been against Assad,
period. This has actually been the case not only since the party that
Assad leads, the Ba’ath Party, was the subject of a shelved CIA
coup-plot in 1957 to overthrow and replace it but, actually the CIA’s
first coup had been not just planned but was carried out in 1949 in
Syria, overthrowing there a democratically elected leader, in order to
enable a pipeline for the Saudis’ oil to become built through Syria into
the largest oil market, Europe; and, construction of the pipeline
started the following year.
But, there were then a succession of Syrian coups
(domestic instead of by foreign powers – 1954, 1963, 1966, and, finally,
in 1970), concluding in the accession to power of Hafez al-Assad during
the 1970 coup. And, the Saudis’ long-planned Trans-Arabia Pipeline has
still not been built. The Saudi royal family, who own the world’s
largest oil company, Aramco, don’t want to wait any longer. Obama is the
first US President to have seriously tried to carry out their
long-desired "regime change" in Syria, so as to enable not only the
Saudis’ Trans-Arabian Pipeline to be built, but also to build through
Syria the Qatar-Turkey Gas Pipeline that the Thani royal family (friends
of the Saudis) who own Qatar want also to be built there.
The US is allied with the Saud family (and with
their friends, the royal families of Qatar, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, and
Oman). Russia is allied with the leaders of Syria, as Russia had earlier
been allied with Mossadegh in Iran, Arbenz in Guatemala, Allende in
Chile, Hussein in Iraq, Gaddafi in Libya, and Yanukovych in Ukraine, all
of whom except Syria’s Ba’ath Party, the US has successfully
overthrown.
Hersh was wrong to say that nobody could figure
out why Obama is obsessed with overthrowing Assad and his Ba’ath Party,
even if nobody that he spoke with was willing to say why. They have all
been hired to do a job, which didn’t change even when the Soviet Union
ended and the Warsaw Pact was disbanded; and, anyone who has been at
this job for as long as those people have, can pretty well figure out
what the job actually is – even if Hersh can’t.
Hersh then said that Obama wanted to fill Syria
with foreign terrorists to serve as the necessary ground forces for his
planned aerial bombardment there, and, if you wanted to go there and
fight there in 2011-2013, ‘Go, go, go… overthrow Bashar!’ So, they
actually pushed a lot of people (extremists) to go. I don’t think they
were paying for them but they certainly gave visas.
However, it’s not actually part of America’s deal
with its allies the fundamentalist-Sunni Arabic royal families and the
fundamentalist Sunni Erdogan of Turkey, for the US to supply the
salaries to be "paying for them", as Hersh put it there to those
fundamentalist Sunni jihadists, that’s instead the function of the
Saudis and of their friends, the other Arab royals, and their friends,
to do.
Those are the people who finance the terrorists to
perpetrate attacks in the US, Europe, Russia, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
India, India, Nigeria, etc., i.e., anywhere except in their own
countries. And, Erdogan in Turkey mainly gives their jihadists just safe
passage into Syria, and he takes part of the proceeds from the
jihadists’ sales of stolen Syrian and Iraqi oil. But, they all work
together as a team with the jihadists sometimes killing each other in
the process ,that’s even part of the plan, though each national leader
has Public relations problems at home in order to fool his respective
public into thinking that they’re against terrorists, and that only the
‘enemy’ is to blame. Meanwhile, the aristocrats who supply the "salaries" of the terrorists, walk off with all the money.
This way, US oil and gas companies will refine,
and pipeline into Europe, the Saudis’ oil and the Thanis’ gas, and not
only will Russia’s major oil-and-gas market become squeezed away by
that, but Obama’s economic sanctions against Russia, plus the
yet-further isolation of Russia, as well as of China and the rest of the
BRICS countries, by excluding them from Obama’s three mega-trade-deals,
TTIP, TPP, and TISA, will place the US aristocracy firmly in control of
the world, to dominate the 21st Century, as it has dominated ever since
the end of WW II.
Then, came this question from Hersh that why does
America do what it does? Why do we not say to the Russians, Let’s work
together?
His interviewer immediately seconded that by repeating it, "so why don’t we work closer with Russia? It seems so rational".
Hersh replied simply: "I don’t know". He didn’t
venture so much as a guess, not even an educated one. But, when
journalists who are as knowledgeable as he, don’t present some credible
explanation, to challenge the obvious lies, which make no sense that
accords with the blatantly contrary evidence those journalists know of
against those lies that come from people such as Barack Obama, aren’t
they thereby, though passively, participating in the fraud, instead of
contradicting and challenging it? Or, is the underlying assumption,
there that the general public is going to be as deeply immersed in the
background information here as I am, so that they don’t need me to bring
it all together for them into a coherent and fully documented whole,
which does make sense? Is that the underlying assumption? Because: if it
is, it’s false.
Hersh’s journalism is among the best, after all:
he went so far as to say, of Christopher Stephens, regarding Hillary
Clinton, there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not
talking to the boss, by some channel, but it’s certainly not good
enough. However, it’s too good to be published any longer in places like
the New Yorker. And the reporting by Christof Lehmann was better, and
it was issued even earlier than Hersh’s; and it is good enough, because
it named names, and it explained motivations, in an honest and
forthright way, which is why Lehmann’s piece was published only on a
Montenegrin site, and only online, not in a Western print medium, such
as the New Yorker. The sites that are owned by members of the Western
aristocracy don’t issue reports like that – journalism that’s good
enough. They won’t inform the public when a US Secretary of State, and
her boss the US President, are the persons actually behind a sarin gas
attack they’re blaming on a foreign leader the US aristocrats and their
allied foreign aristocrats are determined to topple and replace.THE NEWS AGENCY
0 comments:
Post a Comment