In this very fast-moving situation, President Obama is still clearly intent on launching unilateral attacks on Syrian targets over the allegations that Assad ordered the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attacks in a Damascus suburb.  This, despite the fact that the British House of Commons rejected Prime Minister Cameron's demand for authorization to attack, and a majority of Members of the House of Representatives are demanding that the President must get Congressional approval before taking any action.  Some recent news accounts have shot some even bigger holes in the Obama-Kerry narrative, which I share with you here without any further comment or attempt to endorse or reject. Harper



This entry was posted in government, Syria. Bookmark the permalink.


  1. oofda says:

    Please note that one of these sources is the Voice of Russia, an instrument of the Russian Federation. Its precursor was Radio Moscow. Not sure how much credit to give this source.

  2. The Twisted Genius says:

    RT is reporting the same information that appeared in Mint Press News. Both Ctuttle and I linked to the original article earlier. The reporters were Dale Gavlak and Yahya Ababneh, neither of them work for RT. The article also appears on AntiWar.com. Justin Raimondo also refers to the report in his article “The Return of the Dodgy Dossier – The case for bombing Syria is unraveling,” where he also calls bullshit on the administration’s stated case for war.
    As far as I’m concerned, somebody should tie the article to a rock and hurl it through a White House window.

  3. Fred says:

    Coincidentally to all of this are a number of blog postings quoting both trial law and legal advice relative to social media as evidence in court. Not to imply any connection to the authors of the original piece or their legal work but the timing these references is just to close to not raise the question of ‘perception management’ as part of a false flag operation. The a clip of the main article reference and blog I first found this one are below. Apologies in advance if I’m actually wasting anyones time.
    “..Federal District Court Judge Paul Grimm and two of his law clerks published an excellent and comprehensive legal article: “Authentication of Social Media Evidence,” American Journal of Trial Advocacy, 36 Am. J. Trial Advoc. 433 (2013). ”

  4. Eliot says:

    How credible are these allegations? Do the Sauds possess this sort of capability?

  5. confusedponderer says:

    “As far as I’m concerned, somebody should tie the article to a rock and hurl it through a White House window.”
    Your point is well taken, but I advise against putting it into action, since it would probably be considered domestic terrorism and be met with the fullest force that the law allows.

  6. The Twisted Genius says:

    I figured some prissy, humorless CI twit put another entry in my dossier shortly after I hit the post button on that comment. The whole lot of them can go f__k themselves. Damn, theres another entry.

Comments are closed.