{"id":43118,"date":"2013-06-18T17:17:23","date_gmt":"2013-06-18T16:17:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/a-political-ploy-the-guardian-editors-swallow-us-claims-on-syrian-wmd-3\/43118\/"},"modified":"2013-06-18T17:17:23","modified_gmt":"2013-06-18T16:17:23","slug":"a-political-ploy-the-guardian-editors-swallow-us-claims-on-syrian-wmd-3","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/breaking-news\/a-political-ploy-the-guardian-editors-swallow-us-claims-on-syrian-wmd-3\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018A Political Ploy\u2019? The Guardian Editors Swallow US Claims On Syrian WMD"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last week, we\u00a0reviewed<\/a>\u00a0the questions and doubts surrounding claims that the chemical weapon sarin has been used in Syria.<\/p>\n

The Obama administration has since\u00a0claimed<\/a>\u00a0that its \u2018red line\u2019 has indeed been crossed \u2014 it now has firm evidence that Syrian government forces have used chemical weapons. As a result, the US will begin supplying Syrian insurgents with small arms and ammunition. White House foreign policy adviser Benjamin Rhodes gave dates and locations for alleged sarin attacks but no details of the fighting or numbers of people killed.<\/p>\n

In a subsequent article for McClatchy Washington Bureau, Matthew Schofield noted that chemical weapons experts remain \u2018skeptical of U.S. claim that Syria used sarin\u2019. Jean Pascal Zanders, a leading expert on chemical weapons, until recently a senior research fellow at the European Union\u2019s Institute for Security Studies,\u00a0commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018It\u2019s not just that we can\u2019t prove a sarin attack; it\u2019s that we\u2019re not seeing what we would expect to see from a sarin attack. In a world where even the secret execution of Saddam Hussein was taped by someone, it doesn\u2019t make sense that we don\u2019t see videos, that we don\u2019t see photos, showing bodies of the dead, and the reddened faces and the bluish extremities of the affected.\u2019<\/p>\n

Greg Thielmann, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Arms Control Association, said that \u2018my guess is they [US officials] have it right\u2019. But Thielmann noted that the White House statement on the crossing of the \u2018red line\u2019 in Syria was \u2018carefully and prudentially worded\u2019 and acknowledged the lack of a \u2018continuous chain of custody for the physiological samples from those exposed to sarin\u2019.<\/p>\n

As we\u00a0discussed<\/a>\u00a0last month, a secure chain of custody is vital for ensuring samples have not been contaminated. Alastair Hay, a toxicologist at the University of Leeds, commented:<\/p>\n

\u2018To make a legal case \u2014 whether it\u2019s against the Syrian government or opposition group \u2014 you need an ironclad chain of custody.\u2019<\/p>\n

Philip Coyle, a senior scientist at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Washington, said that the lack of hard, public evidence made it difficult for experts to assess the validity of the administration\u2019s claims. What happened \u2018doesn\u2019t look like a series of sarin attacks to him\u2019, Schofield reports of Coyle, who also commented: \u2018Without blood samples, it\u2019s hard to know. It does not eliminate all doubt in my mind.\u2019<\/p>\n

Anthony Cordesman, a security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington,\u00a0argues<\/a>\u00a0that \u2018the \u201cdiscovery\u201d that Syria used chemical weapons might be a political ploy\u2026 The real reasons [for US intervention] are the broader humanitarian issues involved and far more urgent U.S. strategic interests\u2019.<\/p>\n

Yuri Ushakov, Vladimir Putin\u2019s top foreign policy adviser,\u00a0said<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018What was presented to us by the Americans does not look convincing. It would be hard to even call them facts.\u2019<\/p>\n

The Independent\u2019s Robert Fisk again poured\u00a0scorn<\/a>\u00a0on the claims:<\/p>\n

\u2018Washington\u2019s excuse for its new Middle East adventure \u2014 that it must arm Assad\u2019s enemies because the Damascus regime has used sarin gas against them \u2014 convinces no-one in the Middle East. Final proof of the use of gas by either side in Syria remains almost as nebulous as President George W. Bush\u2019s claim that Saddam\u2019s Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.\u2019<\/p>\n

Despite all of this, a Guardian editorial offered a strikingly different judgement. Noting that Obama had decided to authorise military aid on the basis \u2018that Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against the opposition\u2019, the editors\u00a0commented<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2018That use is an outrage and is against international agreements. It adds to the charge sheet against the Assad regime.\u2019<\/p>\n

These are among the most shocking comments we have ever seen in the Guardian. Despite the indisputable fraudulence of US-UK claims regarding Iraqi WMD, an equally staggering litany of lies on Libya, and despite the existence of gaps and doubts so reminiscent of Iraq 2002-2003, the Guardian is willing to quietly endorse the latest claims on Syria \u2014 \u2018Assad\u2019 clearly\u00a0has<\/em>\u00a0used chemical weapons and that use should be added to the charge sheet against him.<\/p>\n

Once again, when it really matters, the Guardian editors are on-message, on-side and boosting war propaganda.<\/p>\n

Unfortunately, the Guardian has form. On January 24, 2003, at a crucial time, leading Guardian reporter Martin Woollacott wrote of Saddam Hussein:<\/p>\n

\u2018Among those knowledgeable about Iraq there are few, if any, who believe he is not hiding such weapons. It is a given.\u2019 (Woollacott, \u2018This drive to war is one of the mysteries of our time \u2014 We know Saddam is hiding weapons. That isn\u2019t the argument,\u2019 The Guardian, January 24, 2003)<\/p>\n

In fact, this was not only false, it was a near-exact reversal of the truth. Hans Blix, former head of UNMOVIC arms inspections in Iraq (November 2002-March 2003), said in June 2003:<\/p>\n

\u2018If anyone had cared\u2026 to study what UNSCOM [UN arms inspection team in Iraq, 1991-1998] was saying for quite a number of years, and what we were saying, they should not have assumed that they would stumble on weapons.\u2019 (Miles Pomper and Paul Kerr, \u2018An Interview With Hans Blix,\u2019 Arms Control Today, June 16, 2003)<\/p>\n

Ironically, in a leading article on the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq disaster, the Guardian later observed:<\/p>\n

\u2018What is already clear from the first week alone is that the decisions, secret or otherwise, that led to war were the product of systemic failure. Intelligence analysts, diplomats, in fact the entire machinery of the British government, proved supine against Washington\u2019s will. Under that pressure, almost everyone buckled.\u2019 (Leading Article: \u2018Iraq inquiry: Dancing to American drums,\u2019 The Guardian, November 28, 2009)<\/p>\n

The press included!<\/p>\n

Supposedly at the other end of the media \u2018spectrum\u2019, a leading article in The Times echoed the Guardian\u2019s view:<\/p>\n

\u2018Assad\u2019s chemical attacks are a barbarous form of warfare intended to spread terror. Arming the rebels is a temperate response to try to force a political settlement.\u2019 (Leading article, \u2018Syria\u2019s Red Line,\u2019 The Times, June 15, 2013)<\/p>\n

Suggested Action<\/strong><\/p>\n

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. If you do write to journalists, we strongly urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.<\/p>\n

Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor
Email: alan.rusbridger@guardian.co.uk<\/p>\n

Chris Elliott, Guardian readers\u2019 editor
Email: reader@guardian.co.uk<\/p>\n

Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic editor
Email: jonathan.marcus@bbc.co.uk<\/p>\n

This article originally appeared on: Global Research<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last week, we\u00a0reviewed\u00a0the questions and doubts surrounding claims that the chemical weapon sarin has been used in Syria. The Obama administration has since\u00a0claimed\u00a0that its \u2018red line\u2019 has indeed been crossed \u2014 it now has firm evidence that Syrian government forces have used chemical weapons. As a result, the US will begin supplying Syrian insurgents with […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[487],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-43118","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-breaking-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=43118"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/43118\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=43118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=43118"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=43118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}