HERSH LRB SARIN ARTICLE ASKS A VERY GOOD QUESTION BUT ONE THAT WAS ANSWERED BEFORE PUBLICATION

A week ago t'interweb was buzzing with chat about the latest article by Seymour Hersh. The article was concerned with the horrific events in Ghouta on 21st August this year. Hersh tries to piece together a timeline of how The White House prepared its case against Assad, only for Obama to suddenly do 180 and seek peace.

Hersh asks the very pertinent and valid question:

The administration’s distortion of the facts surrounding the sarin attack raises an unavoidable question: do we have the whole story of Obama’s willingness to walk away from his ‘red line’ threat to bomb Syria? He had claimed to have an iron-clad case but suddenly agreed to take the issue to Congress, and later to accept Assad’s offer to relinquish his chemical weapons. It appears possible that at some point he was directly confronted with contradictory information: evidence strong enough to persuade him to cancel his attack plan, and take the criticism sure to come from Republicans.

[source : Whose sarin?, London Review of Books, http://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarin, 19th December 2013]

The way Hersh reports the developments implicates Obama as being one of the instigators in pinning the blame on Assad. Yet, as Hersh states, Obama then did a 180.

Just a few weeks ago The Emergency Committee for Israel issued a declaration of war on Obama. This declaration came in the form of a video attacking Obama for not attacking Syria and seeking peace with Iran. The ECI is a creature of Bill Kristol. It was Kristol who formed The Project for a New American Century. The ECI is run by PNACers. And anyone with any interest in current affairs knows that there was a cabal of Zionists who wrote A Clean Break and/or joined PNAC and guided the response of the USA to the 9/11 attacks. It was they who cherry-picked the intelligence on Iraq. A Clean Break named Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon as targets for Israeli aggression. The first thing that PNAC did was write to then President Bill Clinton demanding war on Iraq. And in their Rebuilding America's Defenses, PNAC named Iraq and Iran as the greatest threats to US national security, with Iran more dangerous than Iraq.

Obama resisted for months the traps and provocations and in-your-face diplomacy designed to drag the USA into a war on Syria. Obama was not supposed to win the election last year. Bilderberg and Wall Street picked Romney and his pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-fascist policies. Prince Bandar bin Sultan organised the horrific tragedy of Ghouta as the hell designed to pressure Putin into dumping Assad and Obama into bombing Syria.

What people must understand is that:
1. 9/11 was an inside job run by Israel and Saudi Arabia with the nod from the DFQ and City of London
2. General Wesley Clark as told that Iraq, Iran, Syria and Lebanon, and Libya, Sudan and Somalia would find themselves at war with the USA; these seven nation in five years was the very ambitious plan.
3. but by 2007 only 2 of these nations had experienced war; Iraq and Lebanon.
4. so an agreement was reached between the USA, Israel and Saudi Arabia that the latter would unleash cutthroat Jihadis onto some of those 7 nations.
5. first it was Libya.
6. and next it was Syria.

But Syria has not fallen. It is a pile of rubble that with the correct finance and assistance can be rebuilt.

But after over 12 years only 3 of the planned 7 nations have fallen.

And perhaps the ultimate, Iran, still stands, surrounded but unbeaten.

So the plan for war on seven nations in five years is seriously, seriously behind.

In a Monty Python sketch you could say that it is now an ex-plan, it has ceased to be.