Syria coverup: lying about chemical attacks

 

   

By Reginald Johnson

 

  For years, the United States government has been trying to overthrow the regime of Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad --- claiming that Assad is a brutal human rights violator who uses chemical weapons against his own people.

   The US claims Assad has done this on a number of occasions, the most recent being April 2018 when the Syrian military allegedly poisoned people in the city of Douma with a gas attack, leaving 40-50 people dead.

  That purported attack was used to justify a missile strike on Syrian government sites ordered by former President Trump. Six people were killed in the bombing.

  Now however, the truth is beginning to emerge that the 2018 chemical attack in Douma was a lie.

   Several former investigators and a former top official with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons have come out and stated that a finding by the OPCW in 2019 which confirmed the chemical attack, was invalid.

  The former inspectors further stated that an interim report they authored determined that no such chemical attack had occurred, but that report was scuttled and the information and in it never made public. Key scientific findings were censored and the inspectors were removed from the probe.

 Documents which have been leaked to Wikileaks and to the Grayzone investigative news website, confirm what the whistleblowers stated, according to Aaron Mate, a writer with the Grayzone.

  “They show in great detail what was happening here and what a cover-up this was,” Mate said on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox TV March 12.

  Mate said there is a push on now to set the record straight. The former OPCW officials have demanded that the organization hold an open forum to discuss all the findings and determine the truth. So far however, OPCW management has refused to do that and in fact has publicly condemned the whistleblowers.

   Now, a group of distinguished authors, academics, antiwar activists and a former US presidential candidate have joined with the whistleblowers and a former top OPCW official to issue a “Statement of Concern” calling out the organization’s actions. Those signing the statement include Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, author John Pilger, Ret. Col. Lawrence Wilkerson and former presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.

  In the statement posted on the website for the Courage Foundation, which represents whistleblowers, the group criticized the OPCW management and demanded a transparent and open investigation of the April 2018 attack.

  “The issue at hand threatens to severely damage the reputation and credibility of the OPCW and undermine its vital role in the pursuit of peace and security,” the statement read. “It is simply not tenable for a scientific organization like the OPCW to refuse to respond openly to the criticisms and concerns of its own scientists whilst being associated with attempts to discredit and smear those scientists.”

   The statement on, “We believe that the interests of the OPCW are best served by the director general providing a transparent and neutral forum in which the concerns of all the investigators can be heard as well as ensuring that a fully objective and scientific investigation is completed.” 

 The United States has been militarily intervening in Syria over the past decade, first supplying arms to anti-Assad rebels and then introducing hundreds of American troops. During the intervention more than 400,000 Syrians have lost their lives.

   Trump is not the last president to order a military strike against Syria. In February, President Biden ordered airstrikes on Syrian targets, killing 22 people. The administration said the airstrikes were made in retaliation for rocket attacks launched by Iranian-backed militias in Syria against US targets in Iraq.

  Mate said it is critical that the lie about the supposed chemical attack in Douma be exposed.

  “These lies can lead to war.  We know the consequences in Iraq of going to war with Iraq based on lies.” Mate said during his appearance on FOX.

  He added, “Even now today these allegations of chemical attacks in Syria are being used to justify the ongoing military occupation there and the sanctions that are destroying Syria, preventing the import of food and medicine, destroying Syria’s economy and preventing it from rebuilding. That is not good for Syrians and that is not good for Americans. It’s only good for warmongers in Washington.”

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

Greenwich Rally against War and Income Inequality

By Reginald Johnson

         

      One of the wealthiest communities in the United States will be the scene this weekend of a rally against income inequality and America’s ongoing wars.

    The “Rally and Teach-in for Peace and Economic Justice” will take place Saturday from 11 am to 3 pm on the Greenwich Common, 290 Greenwich Avenue in the heart of downtown Greenwich.

   According to Nick Mottern, one of the organizers for the event, speakers at the rally will address the destructive consequences of the wide and rapidly expanding gap between rich and poor.

   “We will emphasize what Martin Luther King labeled the 'Triplets of Evil: Racism, Extreme Materialism and Militarism' and the takeover of our democracy by an increasingly insular plutocracy,” said Mottern.

   Representatives of social justice and antiwar organizations will discuss strategies on how to stop US wars, police oppression and how to create income equality, including a call for divestment from the military-industrial complex.

   Mottern said that Greenwich was selected for the protest since a number of its residents have extraordinary economic and political power and as such have the ability to make a difference as to how national resources are spent, whether for war or for peaceful reasons.

   “Greenwich is not only one of the wealthiest communities in the United States but the world.  I’ve read press reports that show there are at least 10 multi-billionaires in Greenwich and their total worth combined is about $35 billion, and six of those people control investment companies that have under their management about $500 billion,” said Mottern, an activist with the peace organization in Westchester County called WESPAC.

   Investment firms and banks have holdings in publicly-funded weapons manufacturers and large health companies which benefit from massive military spending and US involvement in wars.

   Mottern said “we would want these people (leaders of the investment firms) to take leadership in selling stock they own in companies that are making weapons.”
   Mottern drew the connection between stopping wars and economic justice. He said the US wars overseas are "essentially colonial" wars where this country makes sure that foreign lands are open for corporate exploitation. "Economically, these wars, by repressing people overseas and grabbing their resources at cheap prices keep their economy struggling, keep wages low and thereby maintain low wage zones that undercut US workers," Mottern said.  "In addition, dollar for dollar more jobs are created by taxpayer spending on education health and green energy then on military industry."
   Out of the rally and teach-in, Mottern added, “it is hoped that people will go out and form local peace and economic justice groups that will carry forward with the purpose of using economic power to stop war and achieve some kind of economic justice.”

   Speakers at the rally will include some nationally known figures, including Medea Benjamin, of the antiwar organization Code Pink/Divest from the War Machine.  There will also be representatives from Veterans For Peace, Black Lives Matter and the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC).

  The event was organized by Mottern and others in WESPAC and by Orange County Peace and Justice.

  It has been endorsed by a number of groups including Code Pink, Friends of the Congo, the Greater New Haven Peace Council, Knowdrones.com, WESPAC and the Hudson Valley Green party.

    Another theme that will be emphasized at the event is to urge people to put pressure on their members of Congress to curb US involvement in wars.

   Hanging over the event is the announcement by the Trump administration that the United States will likely attack Syria due to charges that the Syrian military recently dropped chemical bombs on a town near Damascus where the government has been fighting Islamic militants. The alleged attack, not yet substantiated, killed dozens of civilians. A number of members of Congress have already expressed support for a retaliatory strike.

   The US has 2000 troops and military personnel in Syria in violation of international law, since the UN never authorized US intervention in that country and Syria had never attacked the United States.

  The American military has been fighting to dismantle the ISIS terrorist group while at the same time covertly aiding rebel groups trying to oust the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad.

   Mottern said people coming to the rally should bring folding chairs.

  (For more information call Taylor Rae Bundy at 929-305-2351 or Nick Mottern at 914-806-6179)

  

       

   

   

Rush to Judgment in Syria

 By Reginald Johnson

  Once again there are claims that the Syrian government launched an attack against its own people, using chemical weapons.

  And once again the United States is threatening to punish Syria, even though there has been no independent verification proving that an attack took place and identifying who was responsible.

  Aid workers and opposition leaders charged on Saturday that Syrian aircraft dropped barrel bombs over the town of Douma, near Damascus, releasing a chemical gas which left people suffocating and eventually dying. Press reports indicated that dozens of people may have died.

  Media outlets such as the New York Times and CNN said there had been no outside confirmation that the attack took place and that the Syrian military was responsible.

  Officials of both the government of Syria and Russia, which is helping Syrian forces in their battle against opposition groups during a seven-year civil war, have denied responsibility for the bombing.

  Despite the lack of firm evidence as to who was culpable, President Donald Trump and members of Congress wasted no time in naming Syria, Russia and Iran as the guilty parties.

 Trump, who only last week said that the United States was interested in withdrawing its forces from Syria, put out a Tweet on Sunday morning, labeling Syrian president Bashar al-Assad as an “animal” and blaming  “Putin’s Russia” and Iran, for supporting him. Trump said that there would be a “big price to pay” because of the incident.

   Trump did not spell out what kind of retaliation the U.S. was thinking about.  But the White House’s Homeland Security advisor Thomas P. Bossert said on ABC’s “This Week” program that a military strike was possible.  “Nothing should be taken off the table,” he said.

  U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-SC, one of the most hawkish members of Congress, said Trump must act to punish Syria. Graham told the “This Week” show on ABC that this was a “defining moment”  for Trump’s presidency. “Assad is at it again,” he said.

  So-called moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, also chimed in, telling a reporter that some kind of “targeted attack” against Syria was needed right now.

  Just a year ago, Trump ordered the U.S. military to fire 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syrian targets in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack carried out by the government in which 100 people reportedly died. Trump's action at that time won bipartisan praise.

   Just as there was little questioning about the veracity of the reports about the chemical attack one year ago, there’s also little skepticism being voiced now about the validity of the claims by anti-government militants and so-called aid workers about barrel bombs being dropped on the population in Douma.

   It seems odd that the Syrian military would want to carry out a chemical attack at this time. The government has been winning the civil war against various insurgent groups, including some that are affiliated with Al-qaeda. Syrian forces had encircled the city of Douma and it was really just a matter of time before the Syrian army would take control of the city.

  What would be gained by Syria carrying out this terrible attack? The government would be risking world condemnation as well as the possibility that the Trump administration would change its mind and decide not to begin the withdrawal of some 2000 American military personnel.

   The question of cui bono, or who benefits? has to be asked in assessing the claims about a chemical attack. Clearly opposition forces will stand to benefit if this attack is linked to the Syrian government and the Americans decide to not only launch a punishing military strike to hurt Assad, but also to reconsider the idea of leaving Syria.

   The possibility that this attack was staged by opposition groups or by some intelligence forces from different countries who are aiding them, cannot be ruled out.

   The United States, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been aiding the forces who are trying to topple the Assad government. The U.S. has had military personnel in Syria for several years now in violation of international law, since America was not attacked by Syria and the U.S. had no UN authorization to introduce forces into that country. The Trump administration has maintained that the primary purpose of American forces in Syria has been to dismantle the ISIS terrorist group. However, it has been clear for years that the U.S. has been aiding opposition forces in order get rid of the pro-Russia and pro-Iranian Assad government.  

    We don’t really know at this time who may have carried out the chemical attack, if indeed there was a bombing. The Russians and the Syrians are actually maintaining that the incident may have been fabricated.

   What is needed here is an international investigation overseen by the United Nations to determine the exact nature of this attack and who in fact carried it out. It is wrong for both the Trump administration, members of Congress, and the press to automatically assume that the Syrian government, the Russians or the Iranians were somehow responsible for this attack, simply based on the claims of very self-interested people in the opposition groups or from the “White Helmet” aid group, whose authenticity has been questioned. At this point we do not have firm evidence to lay the blame on the Syrian government and their allies.

   It would be completely irresponsible for the Trump administration to launch another missile strike against Syria, simply based on the limited information that is now available.

   However, given the power of the pro-war, neocon bloc in Washington, symbolized by people like Sen. Graham, combined with Trump’s shaky political situation due to the Russia-gate investigation, and the fact that Trump won praise from both sides of the aisle after his attack on Syria last year,  it is likely that Trump will decide to launch another military strike against Syria.

   Another factor in the situation is what impact super hawk John Bolton, the extremist former UN ambassador, will have on Trump’s thinking. Bolton was recently appointed as Trump’s national security advisor and his work begins Monday.

 As with the recent claims made by the UK about an alleged poisoning attack by Russia against a former British spy in England, it is critical for the media to challenge government claims. The media cannot just roll over and accept sweeping accusations about the possession of, or use of, chemical weapons by other countries without asking tough questions.  That’s because these claims ---- sometimes erroneous --- are often used as a predicate for military action. Military action means loss of life and sometimes that loss of life can be huge, as we have seen in the Iraq War.

  So the press has a crucial job in challenging government officials. Lives are at stake and ultimately the peace of the world is at stake.

  

  

     

  

 

   

   

 

 

 

  

Blocking Detente

By Reginald Johnson

                                          

   There’s a possibility for making a better relationship between the United States and Russia, but the knives are out.

    U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met last week in Hamburg, Germany and had what appeared to be a very constructive meeting. The two discussed a range of issues including the war in Syria, the battle against terrorism, cyber security and the charges of Russian meddling in the US presidential election last year.

    The two leaders were able to strike an agreement for a cease-fire in a section of Syria and coordinate with each other in the battle against ISIS. They agreed to disagree on the claim of Russian hacking.

   According to Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, the Trump-Putin  meeting may augur a new day in Russia-US relations.

  Cohen said the meeting represented a “potentially historic new détente, anti-Cold War partnership begun by Trump and Putin.”  He noted that the relations between the two nuclear-armed superpowers are at their lowest point in decades.

  “What we saw today was potentially the most fateful meeting between an American and Russian president since the wartime (World War II),"  said Cohen, who witnessed the Reagan-Gorbachev summit meetings in the 1980s.  “The reason is the relationship between the US and Russia is so dangerous.”

   But Cohen, speaking on the Tucker Carlson show on Fox television on Friday,  hours after the meeting, cautioned that the proposed new partnership will likely come under “vicious attack.”

   How right he was. Over the next few days there was a fierce pushback. On Sunday,  three longtime critics of Trump and Russia took to the airwaves to criticize Trump’s performance in Hamburg and blast the idea of a partnership.

  Neo-con senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham said it made no sense to forge a new agreement with Russia without punishing Russia first for the alleged cyber attacks in the US election last fall.

  They and others keep insisting that Russian responsibility for the hacking is flat fact, despite serious doubts raised by a number of cyber experts, the fact that the report on the hacking was done not by the FBI but by a company hired by the Democratic National Committee,  the fact that the company’s  chief technical officer is an anti-Putin Russian émigré and the fact that a full National Intelligence Estimate on the hacking,  involving all 17 intelligence agencies, was never done (contrary to assertions by many politicians and the media).

  Speaking on the NBC show “Meet the Press,” Graham said Trump gave a “terrific speech” in Poland earlier in the week on his European trip, but then had what he called a  “disastrous meeting” with Putin in Germany.   The senator said the president has a “blind spot” on Russia and his attitude that we should  “forgive and forget when it comes to Putin regarding cyber attacks is to empower Putin and that is exactly what he is doing.”

  McCain criticized Trump’s tweet over the weekend that he “looked forward to working constructively with the Russians” --- actually, a thoroughly laudable goal, in my view.

  But McCain demanded that Putin must pay a stiff price for the claimed hacking. “Otherwise he’ll be encouraged to do it again,” he said.

  John Brennan, former director of the CIA, also appeared on “Meet the Press” and made similar criticisms about the alleged hacking and Trump’s seeming soft attitude towards it.

   ( I have to digress a bit here. It’s amazing how discredited figures like Brennan can be trotted out by NBC to weigh in as esteemed authorities on issues of law and proper behavior. Under Brennan , the CIA conducted drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan that killed many civilians --- a breach of international law. The agency also used unlawful interrogation techniques, including torture, in dealing with prisoners in the years following the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. When a Senate committee began investigating the torture claims, the CIA was reluctant to cooperate and in fact spied on the Senate staff investigators by hacking  (yes, hacking!)  into their computers. But now those days are over and Brennan is suddenly an expert analyst on TV, inveighing against hacking by Russia.)

 As typified by the “Meet the Press” show hosted by Chuck Todd --- who did not bring in a guest who offered a more favorable view of Trump’s Hamburg meeting – the media coverage of the Hamburg meeting, Putin and Russia in general has been decidedly negative.

   On Friday evening, NBC reporter Richard Engel hosted a show called “On Assignment” which presented a scathing, and very one-sided report on Putin and Russia. Basically, he and the guests on the show portrayed Russia as a criminal state where Putin operated as a Mafia boss working with wealthy oligarchs. The show described numerous mysterious killings that have taken place in Russia and outside, in which dissidents and government critics have been murdered. Some of the stories were chilling and had the ring of truth.

However, Engel presented little in the way of countervailing theories in his piece on  the various murders as well as the bombing of an apartment building which killed hundreds of people, and which critics say was ordered by Putin. Government officials were not given any chance to rebut the claims of illegality. Putin was painted from beginning to end as a brutal killer who can’t be trusted.

While some of the claims of Russian government criminality may be true, I have to be skeptical when a reporter is portraying a person or officials as having committed acts of gross illegality or murder but does not bother to give the accused a chance to respond.

 Given the one-sided presentation and the timing of the show --- aired on the evening of the day of the Trump-Putin meeting – the show came across as a hit piece designed to undermine any notion that working with Russia or Putin was a worthwhile goal.

  The avalanche of criticism of Trump and Putin from both Republicans and Democrats continued on Monday on shows like MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”  hosted by bitter Trump critics Joe Scarborough and Mika Brezinski.

So the demonization of Russia, Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump goes on, undermining the prospects of a more positive and less dangerous relationship between the superpowers. Given the size of the two nations’ nuclear arsenals and the areas of the world that could be flashpoints for conflict between the U.S. and Russia, like Syria and Ukraine, that is a shame.

 

  

Activists to Blumenthal: Stop Supporting War

By Reginald Johnson

      HARTFORD --- A coalition of peace activists is criticizing U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn for supporting President Trump’s recent decision to launch a missile attack on Syria.

    Members of the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition recently submitted petitions to Sen. Blumenthal’s office saying that the attack only served to kill more people, make more enemies and contribute to more terrorism.

   “Your support for President Trump’s bombing emboldens the recklessness of military escalation. It emboldens Trump’s wars on Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen. It enables Trump to threaten war with North Korea, China, Russia and the world,” the petition said.

 

  The group also wrote that by endorsing the missile strikes, Blumenthal was “in actuality” supporting Trump’s proposal to expand the approximately $600 billion military budget by $54 billion. This means more war and less money for social programs like Meals on Wheels, school lunches, food stamps, Medicare and Medicaid, they said.

   “Bombing abroad kills us at home,” the petition reads.

   The statement implores Blumenthal to "Stop Supporting Wars" and "Fund Our Cities."

 

Peace activists confront Sen. Richard Blumenthal over his support for Syrian missile strikes.

 

 President Trump ordered the missile strike on April 7 in response to what the administration claimed was a “chemical weapons attack” by the Assad government in Syria days earlier that killed more than 100 people.

  Trump’s decision to launch the strike --- consisting of 59 Tomahawk missiles fired from two aircraft carriers in the Mediterranean at a Syrian airfield --- has won bi-partisan support.

  Blumenthal issued a statement saying that the U.S. attack “sent a message to the murderous Assad regime and his enablers, Russia and Iran.”

    However, the senator did question the legality of the missile strike, since there was no congressional authorization and also noted that the administration needed a broader strategy for dealing with Syria.

   Days after the American strike, members of the coalition decided to protest outside Blumenthal’s office at Statehouse Square and submit the petitions.  The senator heard about the activists gathering and came outside for a brief meeting with the group before he headed off for another appointment.

   Blumenthal listened politely to various comments questioning the U.S. assault, but gave no ground.

  Steve Krevisky, a professor at Middlesex Community College told Blumenthal he was skeptical about the claim that Syrian government forces were responsible for the chemical attack. He noted that initial claims that Assad had used chemical weapons in 2013 --- which nearly prompted an American military response at that time --- were proven wrong after an investigation.

  Blumenthal commented, however, that “there is a lot of evidence” that Assad was guilty this time.

 Henry Lowendorf, of the Greater New Haven Peace Council, also said how the Iraq war – which left hundreds of thousands dead, millions of people displaced and spawned ISIS terrorism ---  was based on the false assertion that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

  “We’re not getting the truth,” he said.

  He also lamented the fact that Congress keeps paying for massive military appropriations, which underwrite the cost of wars.

  “You can’t say stop the wars as long as Congress keeps signing the checks,” he said. 

   “Right,” said Blumenthal, then saying “believe it or not, I have another appointment to go to.”

  The senator said he was glad he had a chance to speak with the group and then left.

Demanding an end to U.S. intervention in Syria

  Asked later how he felt the impromptu meeting with Blumenthal had gone, Lowendorf said, “I think Senator Blumenthal listened to us as best he could, but I don’t think he hears us. I think what he hears is the military-industrial complex, and that’s what he supports.”

   Krevisky said that going forward, “we need to be out there mobilizing” against war. “A lot of us were part of the Vietnam era protests, and they had a very big impact. We need to be out there in large numbers. A lot of us feel that way and that’s why we set up the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition, to achieve something like that.”

     

(The next meeting of the Connecticut Peace and Solidarity Coalition is Saturday, May 13, 10 a,m.-12 noon in the student lounge at Middlesex Community College in Middletown. For information contact Joe Wasserman at joewass64@yahoo.com, or Steve Krevisky at SKrevisky@mxcc.commnet.edu or Henry Lowendorf at grnhpeacecouncil@gmail.com)