February 8, 2020
(rough, incomplete)
I had prepared (not finished) this a while back when Tareq Hadad repeated this urban legend, but put it off until my friend Dr. Marcello Ferrada De Noli repeated it just now - my friends deserve better than this! So does everyone else. I anticipate this will be corrected, but right now his list of questions includes:
"Why did in February 2018, the then US Secretary of Defence Jim Mattis declare –nearly a year after the missile attack ordered by President Trump as “retaliatory” act for the alleged “Khan Shaykhun sarin gas attack”– that the US had no evidence of that sarin would have been used?"
He didn't say that is why. Here's how I had analyzed this (still incomplete) in all the detail we'll need, plus some interesting thoughts that come up in connection at the end ("and why did he do that?")
Recently we were encouraged by journalist Tareq Haddad leaving a prized job at Newsweek, basically, so he could write about the truth instead. In his first long explanation here, he refers to his excellent record on reporting and fact-checking, to clarify his stories were getting cut for political reasons. In general, I don't doubt that; we all know or suspect the news is controlled to maintain a political narrative, he gives some specific reasons to suspect the same people he accuses of politicizing the news all around him. And I wouldn't question Haddad's record in general, but no one's perfect, he admits a couple of reasonable errors, and there is at least the one I'll explain now. In his first-hand account article, he includes this example of editorial interference:
In 2018, confirming the earlier reporting by (Seymour) Hersh, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis announced that the Pentagon has no evidence to support the allegations that the Syrian government used sarin in Ghouta, as reported here (link, see below) by the Associated Press. As Newsweek did not report this fact (more evidence of suppression?) I linked to an opinion piece on our website that addressed that report. The first line of that piece links back to the AP story. When questioned by Tufayel why I did this, I explained that I was simply trying to link to references on our website, explaining to him the source was AP—ironically, I was trying to help Newsweek gather more clicks. The information which was ultimately removed from my article was not badly sourced.Not badly sourced ... except that the source was bad, and that is not a fact. I don't know what reasoning Mr. Tufayel gave, but the cut wound up being good advice. Here's what Mattis actually said in the very press briefing in question, on February 2, 2018, cut lean to clarify the point:
"...in the previous administration … they (Syrian government) were caught using it (sarin, probably referring to Ghouta) … they used it (sarin) again during our administration (presumably meaning the Khan Sheikhoun incident)."
Oops!
Actually Haddad's characterization even of what was said in the AP report by Robert Burns is incorrect (it never mentions the Ghouta incident), though Burns seems to be the main error initiator here, and the basic confusion was shared by Ian Wilkie in the cited opinion piece (seemingly not after my stepping in). It might be worth noting this, or at least knowing it.
This error has serious appeal that worked, so lots of people still repeat this claim that Mattis denied sarin use or Syria's responsibility for it. I ignore or debunk it, depending, but these are mostly just people on Twitter, etc. Here's the laudable Tareq Haddad repeating it, at least as badly as usual. So I decided to tackle this "once-and-for-all" as possible, with a new and careful review of my own.
Along the way, as often happens and I can't help it, interesting questions and possible links emerged in the course of re-parsing all this. Mainly it comes down to WHY did Mattis affirm sarin usage when - as we'll see - the context did nothing to lead him there? and is that related to fresh sarin-related developments in Syria over the following days? And are those related, in a foreshadowing sense, to the deadly Douma incident 2 months later (that was clearly supposed to involve sarin but in the end somehow did not)?
Start: What Mattis Said
Getting to the direct contradiction cited above took two levels of error by 3 reporters including Haddad, and to be fair to all of them, they had a pretty bugled starting point from secretary Mattis. It took 4 to tango here, and also a couple of editors to miss the errors, and a whole lot of people since neglecting to check it themselves before we can get to this point of widespread confusion.
https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/1431844/media-availability-by-secretary-mattis-at-the-pentagon/
February 2, 2018
A careful reading makes it clear enough but my additional notes in <brackets> helps to help make it clearer yet. It goes on for a bit, but the full context all needed and barely suffices. :
Q: Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were -- the State Department was talking about just a little bit yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas? Is this something you're seeing that's been weaponized or – just give us a sense.
SEC. MATTIS: It has.
Q: It has. Okay.
SEC. MATTIS: It has. We are more -- even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we're looking for the evidence. And so that's about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they'd be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.
<So Mattis mentions sarin first and it's not clear just why - to shift from chlorine to a less-likely agent to explain their planned inaction? Because of some recent interest in or expectation of sarin clues, to explain their hoped-for missile strikes? Especially with Trump at the helm, it doesn't seem clear what to expect. >
<The questions move on to other subjects, then this one is brought back up>
Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you'd said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?
SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.
Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you're saying you think it's likely they have used it and you're looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?
<reporter heard it as "not used ever," may be balking, and is trying to guess an alternate meanings so as to narrow down what he actually did mean?>
SEC. MATTIS: That's -- we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when -- in the previous administration, when they were caught using it. Obviously they didn't, cause they used it again during our administration.
<could be read "they didn't carry out - sarin - obviously didn't, because they did again … what?" With the blanks filled in right, I think he said Syria has used sarin twice, in defiance of agreements not to.>
And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it's been used.
<so the sarin mention was on general suspicion, and allegations of sarin use, implicitly recent ones (we have it "now" while the suspicions go way back) But that's not clarified, which might be interesting itself. The most recent sarin allegation I know of are from Harasta in November, which is a bit old but might re-circulate ...
And as it hit Ahrar al-Sham fighters and not civilians, Mattis' "from the battlefield" suggests that's what he means.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2018/03/alleged-cw-attack-in-harasta-nov-18-2017.html
There were also reports of smaller, mostly non-fatal chemical attacks across E. Ghouta during the gov. re-conquest, as mentioned specifying chlorine, and said to hit mainly civilians. But these may have involved sarin reports this early which I've missed. So whatever exact alleged use he refers to is the "it" in the next sentence>
We do not have evidence of it. But we're not refuting them; we're looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using -- we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?
Q: So the likelihood was not what your -- you're not characterizing it as a likelihood? I thought I used -- you used that word; I guess I misunderstood you.
SEC. MATTIS: Well, there's certainly groups that say they've used it <recently?>. And so they think there's a likelihood, so we're looking for the evidence.
Q: Is there evidence of chlorine gas weapons used -- evidence of chlorine gas weapons?
SEC. MATTIS: I think that's, yes --
Q: No, I know, I heard you.
SEC. MATTIS: I think it's been used repeatedly. And that's, as you know, a somewhat separate category, which is why I broke out the sarin as another -- yeah.
Q: So there's credible evidence out there that both sarin and chlorine --
SEC. MATTIS: No, I have not got the evidence, not specifically. I don't have the evidence.
<He is driving confusion here; He brings sarin up, a non-sequirur, almost a Freudian slip, maybe. It's on his mind. Why? He says over and over then, basically, "no evidence, no reason, just, um, yeah, that'd be different. There were reports, we have them now, cause for concern - we don't believe them, but … yeah, that darn sarin, it's something else, huh?" What the hell is he on here? That was a pause - he kept going...>
What I'm saying is that other -- that groups on the ground, NGOs, fighters on the ground have said that sarin has been used. So we are looking for evidence. I don't have evidence, credible or uncredible.
<again, the Harasta incident, or something similar an more recent I missed, is what he refers to - he's not the clearest speaker - and his repeated kneejerk denials of ANY real reason to HAVE brought it up suggests, well... a secret reason.>
As for just what "the State Department was talking about just a little bit yesterday" that got all that going:
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-february-01-2018/
Heather NAUERT: "Okay, a couple items of business I want to get to before starting your questions today. The first, I want to mention that we are watching very carefully and the United States is extremely concerned about yet another report of the use of chlorine gas by the Syrian regime to terrorize innocent civilians in East Ghouta, Syria, outside of Damascus. If confirmed, the attack is the third reported instance in the past 30 days in East Ghouta."
We take the allegations of chemical weapons use very seriously and are working with our partners on the ground to investigate the reports. We will continue to seek accountability ...."
I have a Feb. 1 alleged incident in Douma noted, apparently not fatal, but not investigated. By my list of pre-Douma allegations in 2018, this was actually the sixth one, out of 7 non-fatal build-up reports through January and February. So three were higher profile enough to be commented on at the time, including Feb. 1 in Douma. Worth noting and increases the motive to look into it further.
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/03/pre-douma-cw-incidents-in-e-ghouta-2018.html
I just wanted to check that. It didn't add anything, including any reason for Mattis to bring up sarin the following day - after being asked about chlorine.
Error step 1: Burns AP
https://apnews.com/bd533182b7f244a4b771c73a0b601ec5
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. has no evidence to confirm reports from aid groups and others that the Syrian government has used the deadly chemical sarin on its citizens, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday.
<ever?>
“We have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used,” Mattis told reporters at the Pentagon. “We do not have evidence of it.”
<ever?>
He said he was not rebutting the reports. “We’re looking for evidence of it, since clearly we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions,” Mattis said.
Syrian President Bashar Assad denies his government has used chemical weapons.
<and here's this Trump-appointed asshole not-quite rebutting those reports, but suddenly dismissing the evidence underpinning them?!?! The more-important sarin ones anyway? Too angry to read straight?>
Mattis says it is clear that Assad’s government has weaponized and used chlorine gas in the Syrian civil war. “We’re even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use,” he said. … "Last April, the U.S. launched several dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian air base in response to what it called illegal Syrian use of chemical weapons. President Donald Trump said the attack was meant to deter further Syrian use of illegal weapons. In his remarks Friday, Mattis alluded to the April attack, saying, “So they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating” the international prohibition on the use of chemical weapons.
...
Administration officials said Trump has not ruled out additional military action to deter chemical attacks or to punish Assad, though they did not suggest any action was imminent. They emphasized that the United States was seeking a new way to hold users of chemical weapons accountable and wanted cooperation from Russia, Assad’s patron, in pressuring him to end the attacks.
<all-told, this suggests a Trump admin, in denial and Russo-centric cover-up efforts, or whatever - I do not like the hidden tone of this article>
But an interesting snippet doesn't matter here, but plays into the related questions, so it comes up again below:
"On Thursday, the Trump administration accused Assad of producing and using “new kinds of weapons” to deliver deadly chemicals."
Error step two: Wilkie
https://www.newsweek.com/now-mattis-admits-there-was-no-evidence-assad-using-poison-gas-his-people-801542
Opinion
Now Mattis Admits There Was No Evidence Assad Used Poison Gas on His People: Opinion
Ian Wilkie
On 2/8/18 at 11:44 AM EST
Lost in the hyper-politicized hullabaloo surrounding the Nunes Memorandum and the Steele Dossier was the striking statement by Secretary of Defense James Mattis that the U.S. has "no evidence" that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people.
<ever?>
This assertion flies in the face of the White House (NSC) Memorandum which was rapidly produced and declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.
Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency.
<prev. administration, and the current one, are defined time frames where he said sarin WAS used, most famously on those two occasions, and logically he referred to just those two occasions, so ...no, he won't also be DENYING sarin on those two occasions. ANY others, perhaps.... bad bet, thanks Burns>
Mattis went on to acknowledge that "aid groups and others" had provided evidence and reports but stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit.
<Wilkie went on to point out - fairly well - some of the astounding implications Mattis comments would have, if they had been what he thought they were>
I wrote a know-it-all response to Wilkie's piece here, and alerted him to the Mattis error on Twitter, which he seemed to acknowledge. It's just everyone else that still gets confused over this "fact."
Conclusion:
All these journalists could have got this right, but all of them failing to is somewhat understandable. It continues to confuse honest truthseekers, like Mr. Haddad himself, who was prevented (until now) from even speaking such an error. It's possible the editor cutting the point may have read it wrong too, only excising the error because he thought he was deleting an embarrassing fact.
It sounds stifling, as I imagine it must be, to explain the zombie-like journalism today ... best to say it, then learn how to say it better, assess it better, re-evaluate, and proceed - that never works where the response is to stifle discussion down a certain path - unfortunately, a lack of proper exercise can leave perfectly valid and important ideas handicapped, easily disrupted, and unfairly cast as errors or even bloody lies. And of course it can leave a simple error like this from being challenged properly hushing it up AS IF it were a good lead would only reinforce that illusion.
Postscript: And WHY Did He Do That?
or the Sarin that would NOT be Denied
In the days after Mattis' comments - and these reports posing it as denying sarin, which seemed to be accurate characterizations, on first blush - most people didn't notice. But there might be some out there left leeling like Mattis could use a reminder - these might include planners with the Islamist militants in Syria who follow the news but don't read well past first blush. Or by total coincidence, or connected by the unclear impetus behind Mattis mentioning sarin to begin with … it was just two days later, on 4 February, an alleged attack in Saraqeb using chlorine and sarin together.
See for example Amnesty International denouncing this "direct attack on civilians" launched "41 km from the nearest front-line" with "no sign of any military targets." The very two men shown for the header appear again below.
I guess I am suggesting - it just hit me - that this flawed reporting might have played into that. To that extent, of course the issues is the psychos arranging these demonization events and well-timed reminders. and less so that it IS good to get things right. Not because it's much better for upset Islamists to lie and kill people over truth than errors, but because you can't worry about that and it's just good the get it right, limit confusion.
Also no one died in this incident, and no babies were harmed. Big problems with that story popped out on close study, like all the civilians seriously effected (6-8-9 men, unusually clear in being "civilian") were actually militants (one is clearly dressed in camouflage like that of the fighters assisting them, another seems to be, and the rest might've been before stripped down + other clues), and how all effected locals we hear from seem to be their relatives. Also the bleached grass is clear the wind/slope comb driving the chlorine plume was perpendicular to where them 6-8-9 "civilian" men said they were. I don't know how they managed to screw that part up so badly, but I've been baffled by just that kind of thing several times now. Maybe they do it this poorly to insult us along the way?
https://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2019/11/the-nonsense-gassing-of-militants-in.html
…
The 4 Feb. incident was note widely-reported, but did make the news at the time, and was soon probed by the FFM, who found sarin traces in the samples they were handed, and found faith in the helicopter stories they were told, but did NOT specify if the men were civilian or not … they did a video review, like I did.
The other options were unknown recent sarin reports, (which would be a bit odd for me to have missed, but it's possible), or to Harasta back in November, which was a bit old to bring up, but is suggested by his wording. They "now" had these reports or maybe ... something else they don't want to cite directly? Does that drive Mattis' insistent denial of ANY specific knowledge? Over and over he said just some vague reports, but they're especially vigilant for it, and eager to bring that vigilance up out of nowhere - just to repeatedly deny any specific good reason to HAVE brought it up?
Something about the new weapon was learned recently. That's clearly a new clue, and to be that comment-worthy, it might involve sarin. As noted above, the Burns AP report says "On Thursday, the Trump administration accused Assad of producing and using “new kinds of weapons” to deliver deadly chemicals." Here is more detail on that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-administration-syria-probably-continuing-to-make-use-chemical-weapons/2018/02/01/23064386-0785-11e8-b48c-b07fea957bd5_story.html
February 1: "Senior U.S. officials … speaking to journalists on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly … laid out what they said were strong indications that the government of President Bashar al-Assad, seeking to overcome diminished military might, has used the munitions repeatedly since the April attack that triggered President Trump's missile strike on a
Syrian military facility."
"We're certainly seeing the evolution of allegations into new kinds of weapons that suggests an ongoing production capability" related to sarin and chlorine weapons, one official said. "They clearly think they can get away with this if they keep it under a certain level."
… there did not appear to have been any "large use" of banned munitions since April.
But there have been repeated reports of smaller chemical attacks on civilian areas. On one day last month, two separate chlorine attacks were reported in rebel-held towns.
The senior U.S. officials declined to provide details about the U.S. assessment of recent chemical attacks but suggested there had been credible reports of at least one sarin attack.
Whatever to make of that … another interesting coincidence: the fabricated sarin attack of 24 March, 2017 had its stored samples handed over to the FFM some 313 days after the alleged event no one mentioned at the time. That happened to be the 19th of February, about two weeks after the Saraqeb incident. After 313 days, plus a further wait before actual testing the OPCW's labs turned up some degradation products and some intact sarin. ALMOST A YEAR LATER. The correct age of that stuff would probably be … I'm not an actual expert, but something like two weeks fits with what I've heard. And at that time, there were indications of possible sarin use PRIOR to 4 Feb. That never did materialize, unless it was … disguised as something else. Hm?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments welcome. Stay civil and on or near-topic. If you're at all stumped about how to comment, please see this post.