So the master plan was to establish a line in the sand over use of gas ("use it and we invade", basically) and then send gas to islamist rebels; then they would use it and Obama could blame Assad and have his wag the dog pretext for invasion? Only flaw in this theory is Obama wimped out after the gas was used and looked like a fool for ignoring his own line in the sand.
So we should add “WMD trafficker” to the list of Hillary’s “accomplishments”.
it’s alway hard to punch holes in hirsch’s work.
persoanlly, I think he is right on the money with this piece.
sure makes it easy to fit a lot of other pieces of this together.
I think we all know now that the US through Hillary’s state department supplied the Sarin Gas to our paid terrorist conscripts in Syria. This in itself is an act of terrorism. The UN should be imposing sanctions against the US for terrorism and using WMD against civilians in Syria
Omg
Hersh isn’t always right
However sometimes
I do believe “ someone” in the USA along with other actors ( turkey, Saudi, Qatar, etc... Maybe even UKraine) helped orchestrate that attack as a false flag to force obama to honor his redline commens and intervene in Syria
Hundreds of innocent Syrians many children gassed as photo ops
Got to break a few eggs philosophy
The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control treaty which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors.
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, usually called the Geneva Protocol, is a treaty prohibiting the use of chemical and biological weapons in international armed conflicts.
As chemical weapons, they are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687
The use of dangerous gases in warfare is forbidden by treaties already in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and Geneva Protocol of 1925.
Gee how many International Laws covering weapons of mass destruction can one person break? I Can't wait for the Libs to go to the International Court asking for Hillary to stand trial for war crimes for her role with the Sarin.
Note: Following years of negotiations aimed at establishing a permanent international tribunal to prosecute individuals accused of genocide and other serious international crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and the recently defined crimes of aggression, the United Nations General Assembly convened a five-week diplomatic conference in Rome in June 1998 "to finalize and adopt a convention on the establishment of an international criminal court". On 17 July 1998, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) was adopted.
U.S. President Bill Clinton originally signed the Rome Statute in 2000, but stated that he would not submit it to the Senate for advice and consent for ratification until the U.S. government had a chance to assess the functioning of the court. He nonetheless supported the proposed role of the ICC and its objectives:
Why did Hillary and Obama feel the need to attack Libya?
They’re both Democrats. The Party that hates US military intervention.
The President who won the Nobel Peace Prize.
But they are all for attacking Libya.
Why?
Why not Cuba or Mexico?
Why Libya and why those two dipsticks?
Consider...maybe this is success -for Obama!
Obama would wholeheartedly support the status quo:
The rise of ISIS.
Eventual particianing of Iraq.
The European migrant crisis.
Saudi/Iranian entanglement.
Lose of (credible) U.S. Influence in the region.
Win ^ 5