dagblog - Comments for "Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons"

Right, the evidence did not

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 23 Jan 2014 17:17:33 +0000

In reply to

Right, the evidence did not prove one way or another according to the UN.. That Is not the main point of the article if I am reading it right. It is only one piece of the evidence for Parry's thesis. The point here as charged by Parry is that the NYT as well as other media sources are stressing one story while hiding or grossly underplaying reasons to question that story.

Sorry to post a dead-end comment. I am merely experimenting with the delete button in an attempt to see what can and what cannot be disappeared. This comment replaces the one deleted just above.

A shame if that little

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 22:17:51 +0000

In reply to The New York Times has, kind

A shame if that little mistake started a war... mistakes happen though...

The New York Times has, kind

A Guy Called LULU — Mon, 30 Dec 2013 12:55:21 +0000

In reply to Hersh On Obama's Lies About Syrian Chemical Weapons

The New York Times has, kind of, admitted that it messed up its big front-page story that used a “vector analysis” to pin the blame for the Aug. 21 Sarin attack on the Syrian-government, an assertion that was treated by Official Washington as the slam-dunk proof that President Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people.

But you’d be forgiven if you missed the Times’ embarrassing confession, since it was buried on page 8, below the fold, 18 paragraphs into a story under the not-so-eye-catching title, “New Study Refines View Of Sarin Attack in Syria.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/29/nyt-backs-off-its-syria-sarin-analy...

No, I understand that and

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 20:22:45 +0000

In reply to

No, I understand that and your concern.

I was looking at the issue from a different angle.

As true? Probably at least.

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:38:33 +0000

In reply to We can only try to make a

As true? Probably at least. Truer? What difference does that make? I think they are probably all out there far enough that no one gets points for being better because they are not as bad.

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:30:22 +0000

In reply to That the evidence didn't

This comment has been deleted.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/20

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:14:59 +0000

In reply to We can only try to make a

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/16/202325/un-team-confirms-sarin-attack.html

McClatchy, when it was Knight-Ridder, was the only media outlet that seriously questioned the intelligence behind the Iraqi invasion.

We can only try to make a

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:11:49 +0000

In reply to Didn't the UN come to what

We can only try to make a reasoned judgment and doing that allows the possibility of being mistaken. One thing bearing on that judgment, though, should be the absolutely incontrovertible truth that every U.S. government in our lifetime has blatantly lied to its citizens many times about its choreography of events meant to play out on the world stage, or about its direction of the actions of others from backstage.

But surely this is even truer about Syria and Russia, for that matter.

That the evidence didn't

Peter Schwartz — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 19:09:55 +0000

In reply to Didn't the UN come to what

That the evidence didn't confirm, but made it likely that the Assad regime authored the attack. Otherwise, why relieve them of their weapons?

Didn't the UN come to what

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 20 Dec 2013 18:36:41 +0000

In reply to Didn't the UN come to the

Didn't the UN come to what conclusion?