.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Monday, April 24

A neuropharmacologist debunks use of sarin in the Khan Shaykhun incident

What's wrong with this picture?

CNN, April 13, 2017

The US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in [Khan Shaykhun] Idlib last week, a senior US official tells CNN. ...

From Denis O'Brien's April 13, 2017 post at LogoPhere:
... let me make it absolutely clear that as one trained in neuropharmacology I know with absolute certainty that the [April 4 incident in Khan Shaykhun - "KS"],  like the one in Ghouta in 2013, was not a sarin attack.  ...
After taking verbal pokes at reporters and officials involved in the sarin poisoning hoax, O'Brien settles into presenting LogoPhere's Top Ten Ways to Tell When You're Being Spoofed by a False-Flag Sarin Attack


Here I'm just going to extract from his article the 10 subject headers and a few sentences under each heading and/or I summarize his explanation. 

#1. People intoxicated with sarin don't look well. Ever. None of them. 

It amazes me that I would even have to raise this point. But what also amazes me is how often one sees perfectly healthy looking people being passed off as "sarin victims" ...
  #2. People intoxicated with sarin don't gasp, cough, cry, or pant. 
Anoxia is one of those medical conditions that is either corrected immediately or never.  Anoxia is when the amount of oxygen in the blood drops too low to sustain life. Anoxia is what sarin victims succumb to, and the reason is that sarin paralyzes the muscles required to move air in and out of the lungs -- the respiratory muscles. Understanding this simple pharmacological fact is key to understanding so much of what is going on in the fake sarin videos. ...

#3: People intoxicated with sarin don't often foam at the mouth. 

... The physiological issue with the foaming is much the same as with coughing and panting.  Sarin does produce an increase in the production of mucus in the airways -- bronchorrhea -- but if the respiratory muscles are compromised or totally paralyzed, all of that mucus will not likely be pushed into the mouth and nose, nor will there be enough air-flow to aerate the mucus into a foam.  The more common scenario is that the mucus will plug-up the airways and add to the victim's respiratory problems.  ... 

[Foaming could occur if the antidote atropine was administered immediately after the victim was exposed to sarin; see the article for details.]

#4 & #5: People intoxicated with sarin defecate massively and urinate all over themselves. 

Many of the "victims" shown in these dramatic videos from KS are shown in their underwear, which is, in an of itself, a little odd because when I worked in an ER, one of the first things we did with seriously ill patients of all kinds was to cut all of their clothes off so the clothes didn't get in the way or contaminate anything. But the point I want to make here is that in these terrorists' videos if the victims had soiled themselves, it would be immediately evident. And not just for the ones shown in their underwear. ... And the reason ... is that sarin squeezes the smooth muscles of the intestines and bladder so hard that everything is going to come out. ... the lack of feces and urine staining a person's clothes is one of the most evident clues that the person has not been poisoned by sarin.

[He makes the point that the videos of victims show their underwear to be clean]

#6:  People intoxicated with sarin will vomit up everything they haven't defecated.

From both the physiological and evidentiary points of view, this diagnostic point is much the same as the last one.  Sarin causes the smooth muscle that make up the stomach walls to contract so tightly that the person will vomit profusely and the evidence of such emesis will be readily visible.   .... I have waded through dozens and dozens of these videos purporting to show Assad's sarin attacks on his own people, I have seen hundreds of "victims" in those videos, and in all of that supposed sarin-carnage [including the 2013 Ghouta attack] I have only seen two possible examples of vomiting. 

#7&8:  People intoxicated with sarin will produce a large volume of tears and a large volume of watery saliva.

One of the fetishes of the people making these anti-Assad sarin-porn movies is pin-point pupils, aka "miosis."  ... Sure, sarin causes miosis, but then so do a lot of drugs ...

... sarin acts directly on the tear glands to produce a constant, uncontrollable stream of tears. And yet what the terrorists show us [in videos] when shining flashlights in "victims'" eyes is not just pin-point pupils but also absolutely dry eyes, meaning the person could not have possibly been exposed to sarin.  

And they do this over and over again, proving every time what liars they are.  You can find dozens of these pin-point pupil episodes, and none showing excessive tears, except for kids who are crying.  

And it is much the same with the salivary glands -- sarin directly stimulates them, too. And this would produce a large amount of saliva and copious drooling.  So when the terrorist cameraman zooms in for the iconic shot of some poor distressed child's face close-up, and the child is not drooling like a bull mastiff at dinner time, then we have more proof that sarin was not involved in whatever the child's problem is, and most likely, neither was Assad.

#9: People intoxicated with sarin turn blue. Always. 

[My summary: Sarin creates cyanosis, which is most strikingly evident "in the lips, cheeks, ears, and nose where the blood vessels come close to the surface of the skin." O'Brien makes the point that there is no available photographic record, not anywhere or at any time including the KS incident, of a purported sarin victim showing cyanosis. So to convey exactly what cyanosis looks like, O'Brien publishes a rare photograph of a cyanotic condition although not from sarin. Again, none of the videos and photos produced in relation to the KS incident show purported victims with blue or blue-tinged skin.]

#10.   People intoxicated with sarin never turn pink or red. Never.

From the foregoing description of cyanosis, it should not surprise you to learn that people exposed to sarin -- certainly sarin at high enough concentrations to kill -- do not turn red or pink, which is called being rubicund.  Sarin causes anoxia, which causes the blood to turn bluish, which causes people to turn bluish, but blood that has large amounts of oxygen is bright red, which is why anyone who has been intoxicated with sarin cannot, physiologically speaking, be rubicund. 

And yet look at the victims in those sarin-porn flicks that the terrorists put up on YouTube. Look at their skin color. Over and over and over the skin color is pink to bright red.  Look at the victims shown in the images under points #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 above. ...


Denis O'Brien makes several other points in this, his third deconstruction for the public of the sarin poisoning hoax, but the above are the 10 key points about the symptoms of sarin poisoning.

As to those who might worry that by publishing the truth about the symptoms, this will help the terrorists who stage sarin hoaxes and the governments that collude with them -- if they got another chance to fool the public about such a serious matter, then yes, I assume they would be more careful in the future to stage accurate depictions of symptoms. I do not think they are going to get another chance.

Most definitely you would want to read O'Brien's entire exposition, which he simplifies very well for laypersons, and which includes several photographs. You need to understand in detail the extent of the contempt with which governments and news organizations who claim and report on the use of sarin by Syria's government hold the public.  

I refuse to blame this on stupidity, unless I am to accept that the world's wealthiest governments and news organizations were so stupid they never consulted with even one pharmacologist to determine the most telling signs of sarin poisoning. No, they knew; they've known for years. It's just that they also knew the public didn't know the symptoms.  So they proclaimed blatant lies to our faces, then they laughed at us.     


Sunday, April 23

Shooting of a conservationist in Kenya: a deadly mix of drought, corruption, politics

"There's a lot of, actually, politicians, people within the police, people within the administration, storing their wealth in cattle and laundering ill-gotten money through cattle." - Kuki Gallmann's daughter 

Kuki, 73, is a tough old bird; today she survived a severe wound to her stomach from a gunshot that was clearly meant as an assassination attempt. My prayers for her swift and complete recovery.

Kuki Gallmann at her conservancy in Kenya

Daughter of Italian climber and writer Cino Boccazzi, Kuki Gallmann, fascinated by Africa, moved to Kenya with her husband Paolo and son Emanuele in 1972. They acquired Ol ari Nyiro, a 98,000 acre estate in Western Laikipia in Kenya's Great Rift Valley. At the time the estate was still a cattle ranch, which she would later transform into a conservation park. Both her husband and son eventually died in tragic accidents ... Kuki decided to stay on in Kenya to make a difference. She chose to work toward ecological conservation in the early '80s, becoming a Kenyan citizen.
As a living memorial to Paolo and Emanuele she established the Gallmann Memorial Foundation (GMF), which promotes coexistence of people and nature in Africa and is active in education, biodiversity research, habitat protection, reforestation, community service, peace and reconciliation, poverty alleviation and public health. GMF promotes environmental education of Kenyan students. She dedicated Ol ari Nyiro to this ideal, converting it into the Laikipia Nature Conservancy. ... [Wikipedia
"I Dreamed of Africa" Author And Conservationist, Shot In Kenya
By Miles Parks
April 23, 20172:26 PM ET

Kuki Gallmann, a conservationist best known for her book I Dreamed of Africa, was ambushed and shot while she drove across her conservancy in Kenya Sunday morning.
Gallmann, 73, was shot in the stomach and "severely injured" while surveying her property with rangers of the Kenya Wildlife Service, according to her brother-in-law Nigel Adams and a press release from a farmers' association of which she's a member.
She was flown to a hospital in Nairobi for treatment, and was still conscious and speaking after the attack, according to The New York Times.
Her conservancy, the Laikipia Nature Conservancy, has been the center of a bloody battle for weeks, as a large-scale drought has pushed cattle-herders to extreme measures to try and find grazing land.
NPR's Eyder Peralta spoke on All Things Considered earlier this month about the issue, after the owner of another ranch was shot and killed.
"You have nomadic herders who are moving into private wildlife conservancies with thousands of heads of cattle," Peralta said. "And in response, the Kenyan government launched a military-style operation to push the herders out. But what we've seen is an escalation of violence. Police have killed lots of cows. And the herders have responded by burning tourist lodges on the properties."
In fact, Gallmann was said to be surveying arson damage inflicted on her property, when she was attacked.
Members of the Pokot and Samburu tribes have long grazed on conservancy land in Kenya, but over the past few years things have changed. Herders have brought more and more cows, killed other wildlife, and begun to vandalize property. Gallmann's daughter, Sveva Gallmann, told NPR last month that the escalation concerned her.
"That's not just grass," she said. "That is heavily politicized violence. And that is what's much more worrying about this situation."
She added that she doesn't think the herders even own many of the cows.
"There's a lot of, actually, politicians, people within the police, people within the administration storing their wealth in cattle and laundering ill-gotten money through cattle," she said.
Government officials deny those claims.
Kenya has a national election coming up in August, and local land owners also blame politicians for inciting herders to push their cattle onto privately-owned land as a way of boosting their popularity, reports the United Kingdom's The Telegraph.
In an interview with NPR Sunday, Martin Evans, the chair of the Laikipia Farmers' Association, agreed that the battle between the herders and the Kenya Defense forces is politically motivated.
"It started a year ago," Evans said. "At the time it started, there was plenty of rain, it was nothing to do with lack of grass at that time so yes, I think it's definitely being pushed by politicians."
Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta's office issued a statement warning politicians in the area not to inflame the situation with "reckless rhetoric."
"Politicians encouraging invasions of privately-owned property or attacks on individuals can expect strong deterrent action in terms of the law," Kenyatta's spokesman, Manoah Esipisu, said.
In the last month, the violence seemed to be escalating on the Gallmann ranch. Herders burned down a famous resort on her property, and she exchanged text messages last week with The New York Times that showed her concern.
"Pokot militia openly carrying firearms," Gallmann wrote on April 15. "Not just herders. Group of armed men without livestock. 13 firearm spotted."
NPR's Eyder Peralta contributed to this report.

Friday, April 21

April in Paris

April in Paris, chestnuts in blossom
Holiday tables under the trees

April in Paris,
This is a feeling no one can ever reprise

I never knew the charm of Spring, never met it face to face
I never knew my heart could sing

Never missed a warm embrace
'Til April in Paris

I never knew my heart could sing
I never missed a warm embrace
'Til April in Paris

Whom can I run to?
What have you done to my heart?

Photographs are from the Daily Mail report published 13:42 EDT, 20 April 2017; updated 19:38 EDT, 20 April 2017 and headlined "Dramatic video captures French police shooting dead terrorist who killed officer and wounded two others just days before French election - as it's revealed he was released EARLY from 20 year sentence for trying to kill cops" 

Lyrics, above, for "April in Paris" by Yip Harburg, composition by Vernon Duke.  

Wednesday, April 19

The Nation reports on dissenting voices raised against the White House claim that Syria's government used a chemical weapon against civilians on 4 April in Idlib

See also my April 24 post, A neuropharmacologist debunks use of sarin in the Khan Shaykhun incident.  The evidence presented is staggering when one considers the number of governments and news organizations that have ignored the true symptoms of sarin poisoning.


The Chemical Weapons Attack In Syria: Is There a Place For Skepticism?
By James Carden
April 19, 2017 - 12:05 PM ET
The Nation

The American media has excluded dissenting expert opinions in its rush to embrace Trump’s war on Syria.

By firing 59 Tomahawk missiles at a the Shayrat air base in Syria, and killing five Syrian soldiers and nine civilians in the process, President Trump was able to transform himself in the eyes of the media from an object of derision into, in the words of erstwhile Trump critic Eliot Abrams, “Leader of the Free World.”

Dissent from what amounts to a new party line has been noticeably absent. As the investigative journalist Robert Parry recently observed, “All the Important People who appeared on the TV shows or who were quoted in the mainstream media trusted the images provided by Al Qaeda-related propagandists and ignored documented prior cases in which the Syrian rebels staged chemical weapons incidents to implicate the Assad government.”

Former British Ambassador to Syria Peter Ford told the BBC last week that he seriously doubted that Assad was the culprit. “Assad,” said Ford, “may be cruel, brutal but he’s not mad. It defies belief that he would bring this all on his head for no military advantage.” Ford said he believes the accusations against Syria are “simply not plausible.”

And so, on what evidence and intelligence was Trump’s decision based upon?

On April 11, the White House released a declassified 4-page report which was meant to prove its case against Assad and serve as a belated justification for the Tomahawk attack on Syria’s Shayrat air base.The report, which was authored not by US intelligence agencies but by the White House under the supervision of national security adviser HR McMaster, says that “The United States is confident that the Syrian regime conducted a chemical weapons attack, using the nerve agent sarin, against its own people in the town of Khan Shaykhun in southern Idlib Province on April 4, 2017.”

The report relies on “open source” videos for proof of its claim that a “chemical munition landed not on a facility filled with weapons,” as the Russians and Syrians have claimed, “but in the middle of a street in the northern section of Khan Shaykhun. Commercial satellite imagery of that site from April 6, after the allegation, shows a crater in the road that corresponds to the open source video.”

Yet the administration’s report has come under withering scrutiny from Dr. Theodore Postol, a Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who once served as a scientific adviser to the Chief of Naval Operations at the Pentagon.

Postol’s exhaustive critique of the White House report notes that “The only indisputable facts stated in the White House report is the claim that a chemical attack using nerve agent occurred in Khan Shaykhun, Syria.” And yet, according to Postol, “the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity.”

Postol writes that “The only source the document cites as evidence that the attack was by the Syrian government is the crater it claims to have identified on a road in the North of Khan Shaykhun.” Yet his analysis of the photographs of the crater provided by the White House “clearly indicates that the munition was almost certainly placed on the ground with an external detonating explosive on top of it that crushed the container so as to disperse the alleged load of sarin.”

And so, “In order to cover up the lack of intelligence to supporting the president’s action, the National Security Council produced a fraudulent intelligence report.” Postol concludes that the “report is completely undermined by a significant body of video evidence taken after the alleged sarin attack and before the US cruise missile attack that unambiguously shows the claims in the WHR [White House Report] could not possibly be true.”

The Nation spoke to Postol over the weekend.

“What I think is now crystal clear,” he said, “is that the White House report was fabricated and it certainly did not follow the procedures it claimed to employ.”

“My best guess at the moment is that this was an extremely clumsy and ill conceived attempt to cover up the fact that Trump attacked Syria without any intelligence evidence that Syria was in fact the perpetrator of the attack.” 

“It may be,” he said, “that the White House staff was worried that this could eventually come out – a reckless president acting without regard to the nation’s security, risking an inadvertent escalation and confrontation with Russia, and a breakdown in cooperation with Russia that would cripple our efforts to defeat the Islamic State.”

“If that is not an impeachable offense,” Postol told The Nation, “then I do not know what is.”

It is entirely possible, of course, that dissenting voices like Professor Postol and Ambassador Ford’s may ultimately be proved wrong, and that Assad was indeed behind the chemical weapons attack.

Indeed, if it is true, as CNN reported on April 13, that the “US military and intelligence community has intercepted communications featuring Syrian military and chemical experts talking about preparations for the sarin attack in Idlib” then that would be hard, if not impossible to explain away. 

[Pundita note: Given that the American government has routinely lied about the Syrian war and Assad and his government, actually it would be quite easy to dismiss the alleged intercept as just one more lie by showing it as part of an established pattern of lying.  As to American officials refusing to back away from their accusation -- they would have no choice given the alternatives:  firm ground for impeaching Trump and congressional investigation of the use of cooked intelligence to rationalize an act of war.]       

Meanwhile, US officials are not backing away from their claim that there is “no doubt” that the Syrian government ordered the chemical weapons attack.

But at this early stage, questions such as those posed by Postol and Ford should be aired by the US media, not ignored. And, given that the US intelligence community has seemingly kept its distance from the administration’s claims, a serious investigation into what exactly took place is all the more necessary.

Robert Parry writes, “it remains a mystery why this intelligence assessment is not coming directly from President Trump’s intelligence chiefs as is normally the case, either with an official Intelligence Estimate or a report issued by the Director of National Intelligence.”

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA case officer and Army intelligence officer, told radio host Scott Horton on April 6, that he was “hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available, who are saying the essential narrative we are hearing about the Syrians and Russians using chemical weapons is a sham.” 

Giraldi also noted that “people in the both the agency [CIA] and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented” what had taken place in Khan Shaykhun. Giraldi reports that his sources in the military and the intelligence community “are astonished by how this is being played by the administration and by the US media.”

Given these serious questions raised by Giraldi, one can’t help but wonder if the administration’s motives for launching the air strike were motivated by considerations other than those which they have aired thus far. What exactly was the rush? The findings of an investigation into the attack by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is expected to be released in only two weeks time.

In the meantime, according to a report from the April 5th meeting of the UN Security Council, the UN’s High Representative for Disarmament Affairs, Kim Won-Soo, informed the council that “the information on the reported 4 April use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun, in Syria’s Idlib Governorate, was still coming in.” 

The High Representative could also not confirm who carried out the attack, though both sides of the six-year long Syrian war have been repeatedly accused of using chemical weapons.

But in spite of all this, Trump, perhaps sensing political advantage, rushed to execute a unilateral and illegal military response. The fact that he did so raises serious questions about his judgment, as well as the judgment of all the pundits who applauded him.

But perhaps the enthusiasm which greeted Trump’s air strikes was misplaced. Ambassador Ford warns that “Trump has just given the jihadis a thousand reasons to stage fake flag operations, seeing how successful and how easy it is with a gullible media to provoke the West into intemperate reactions.”

It should hardly need saying that highlighting these dissenting voices is not tantamount to excusing Assad’s heinous human rights record or his previous attacks which have killed countless innocent Syrians. 

[Pundita note: The heinous human rights record is that of Assad's enemies, Mr Carden.]

Rather, it is to draw attention to the failure of the US media which has once again abdicated its responsibilities by ignoring the serious questions and allegations raised by Postol, Giraldi, and Ford about the White House’s intelligence relating to the chemical weapons attack in Syria.



Steve Cohen talks on John Batchelor's show about Theodore Postol

See also my April 24 post, A neuropharmacologist debunks use of sarin in the Khan Shaykhun incident.  The evidence presented is staggering when one considers the number of governments and news organizations that have ignored the true symptoms of sarin poisoning.

The short explanation, for readers who've been following this fast-developing story at my blog and elsewhere during the past week, is that on April 18 on the John Batchelor Show, Russia expert Stephen F. Cohen discussed Theodore Postol's critique of the 'intelligence' report that the White House used to rationalize a missile strike against a Syrian air base on the night of April 6 Washington time.

Steve's specific mention of Postol's critique starts at the 15:14 minute mark on the podcast of the discussion, although the segue to the discussion starts at 13:00.     

Steve Cohen weighing in on Postol's assessment of both the chemical incident and the White House report on the incident is big news. The news will get even bigger later today when The Nation publishes James Carden's report on Postol's findings.  

(Update 1:15 PM ET:  The interview has been published.) 

As to what now -- [looking at her watch] we wait for the dawn. Wait for the news of Steve's discussion with John to make its way around Washington and other world capitals, wait for James Carden's report.

Wait, and pray. 


Tuesday, April 18

FARS Syrian war headlines

Astana Process negotiations underway

ASTANA, April 18. /TASS/. The countries acting as the guarantors of the Syrian ceasefire are holding talks on the participation of the Syrian armed opposition in the international meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan’s Foreign Minister Kairat Abdrakhmanov said on Tuesday.
"The issue of the Syrian armed opposition’s participation is within the competence of the guarantor countries. During the previous rounds of the negotiations, Turkey did its utmost to make sure that the armed opposition groups take part in the talks here," he noted.

Abdrakhmanov recalled that during one of the rounds Jordan was represented as an observer and also ensured the participation of the Syrian armed groups located in southern Syria, closer to the border with Jordan in the Astana talks. 

"This fact shows that all parties interested in resolving this conflict by peaceful means are making vigorous efforts to persuade the Syrian armed opposition, firstly, to join the ceasefire and, secondly, to take part in the Astana process," he underscored.

Kazakhstan’s top diplomat also noted the consolidation of stances of all the parties concerned to strengthen both the Geneva and Astana negotiation processes.

"The consolidation of the positions of all parties concerned is underway on the need to strengthen both the Geneva political settlement process and the Astana platform where the cessation of hostilities is discussed," Abdrahmanov noted.

He added that Kazakhstan is getting ready to hold an international meeting in Astana on the situation in Syria. "A meeting of the guarantor countries is to take place in Tehran one of these days. After it we will be briefed on the next steps by the guarantor countries as part of the Astana process. Anyway, as planned, on May 3-4, we are getting ready for the next meeting within the framework of the Astana process," the top diplomat said.


Monday, April 17

Another top scientist backs up Postol's analysis of Syrian chemical incident

See also my April 24 post, A neuropharmacologist debunks use of sarin in the Khan Shaykhun incident.  The evidence presented is staggering when one considers the number of governments and news organizations that have ignored the true symptoms of sarin poisoning.


See Wikipedia's article about NJ.com to appreciate the website's influence in the newspaper world.

From NJ.com, Bad intelligence: Donald Trump attacked Syria based on a report full of holes; Paul Mulshine, April 16, 2017. 
The report is titled "Assessment of White House Intelligence Report of April 11, 2017" and it was authored by Theodore Postol, an MIT professor who is among the world's leading experts on chemical weaponry.
 In 14 pages, Postol demolishes the Trump administration's extended press release claiming proof that Syrian aircraft delivered that gas strike. Here's the key sentence:
"I have reviewed the document carefully, and I believe it can be shown, without doubt, that the document does not provide any evidence whatsoever that the U.S. government has concrete knowledge that the government of Syria was the source of the chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, Syria at roughly 6 to 7 a.m. on April 4, 2017."
Postol writes that "the report contains absolutely no evidence that this attack was the result of a munition being dropped from an aircraft. In fact, the report contains absolutely no evidence that would indicate who was the perpetrator of this atrocity."
The central piece of evidence cited in the administration's report is what appears to be the remains of a rocket casing photographed in a crater on a street where the attack occurred. The rocket body showed evidence of an implosion from above rather than an explosion from within, he writes. (see video below)
The most likely explanation, he writes, is that the casing was placed in the crater and a bomb of some sort was detonated above it.
"The explosive placed on top of the pipe would cause it to be suddenly crushed up like a tube of toothpaste hit by a mallet," he writes.
"Just as the toothpaste would be sprayed out from the toothpaste tube, so will the sarin be sprayed from the metal tube."
Who could have placed that bomb there? Postol doesn't speculate. His specialty is explosions, not politics.
And he is among the most respected scientists in the field, said another highly respected scientist, Frank von Hippel of the Program on Science and Global Security at Princeton.
Postol is no kooky conspiracy theorist, said von Hippel.
"He's very good technically," he told me. "Whatever he says has to be taken seriously."
After reading the report and emailing back and forth with Postol, von Hippel concluded that there was plenty of time for Trump to have a thorough investigation before launching a retaliatory strike.
"There have been calls for independent investigations by groups like the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons," he said. "It would be in the interests of the Syrians to let them have access."
Instead Trump took a "shoot first, ask questions later" stance.
One obvious question is why Syrian leader would do something this stupid just as the U.S. was getting ready to accept him as a partner in the fight against ISIS.
Trump's trigger-happy stance gives von Hippel nightmares when it comes to possible nuclear confrontations - literally.
"I had a nightmare about him the other night," he said. "He really does seem to be impaired in his inability to look at any issue in any kind of depth."
Plenty more observations in Mulshine's column, including a zinger from a former member of the Knesset:
Even worse, Trump did not even wait for the investigation. He ordered that attack after just three days - despite the fact that it occurred behind enemy lines in a place that could not be reached by investigators.
And he never for a second considered the obvious possibility that this was a false-flag operation.
Just a few days before, the U.S. had indicated a possible alliance with Syria against ISIS.
Why on Earth would Assad risk that to kill a handful of civilians with gas when he could just as easily have killed them with conventional bombs?
Here's an excellent examination of that possibility by Uri Avnery, a former member of the Israeli Knesset:
"The operation was an immense success. Overnight, the despised Trump became a national hero. Even liberals kissed his feet.
"But throughout, that question continued to nag my mind. Why did Assad do it? What did he have to gain?
"The simple answer is: Nothing. Absolutely nothing."

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?