According to Yossef Bodansky, respected scholar and Senior Editor of GIS/Defense & Foreign Affairs, states, “There is a growing volume of new evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its sponsors and supporters — which makes a very strong case, based on solid circumstantial evidence, that the August 21, 2013, chemical strike in the Damascus suburbs was indeed a pre-meditated provocation by the Syrian opposition.”
“The extent of US foreknowledge of this provocation needs further investigation because available data puts the “horror” of the Barack Obama White House in a different and disturbing light,” Bodanski said. Read article here.
Bodansky’s report along with other reports from Benswann.com have demonstrated, based on facts, a quite different narrative than what the Obama administration and hawkish Republicans are trying to sell the American people. But there are dissenting voices in both major political parties who oppose the push for a Syrian war.
Rep. Alan Grayson (D) agrees with Sen. Rand Paul not to get involved with Syria’s civil war.
Grayson told CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper, “The secretary (John Kerry) said that the evidence against Assad was undeniable, well its been denied.”
In fact the Syrian government said that (a) they didn’t do it, (b) they never would do it, (c) they never will do it, and (d) they invited U.N. inspectors to prove that. To say it was undeniable is flatly false,” said Grayson.
“Even if we have undeniable evidence the simple fact is it’s not our responsibility. Sometimes everyone needs to learn the principle of minding your own business,” said Grayson.
Tapper asked, “Based on what you have seen in the media and the congressional office you’re not convinced that the Syrian regime was behind the chemical attack in Syria?”
“First of all it is not even clear that it was a chemical attack. If it was a chemical attack then the residue that was left on the clothing of victims would have poisoned other people. That hasn’t happened. Secondly, it could have easily been the rebels who did it or some defective parts of the Syrian military, and third, even if it was a chemical attack, if it was the military doing it. There is no evidence that it was a deliberate decision on the part of the leadership in Syria. And I don’t like sitting here sounding like an apologist for a dictator, but the fact is if you are going to say there is clear evidence and its undeniable that’s the way it ought to be. The British put out a report that it is not undeniable and the evidence is quite unclear. We are not the world’s policeman that is not our responsibility, said Grayson.
Grayson told Tapper, “Obama is giving only one side of the story.”
Americans demand clear answers.
Bodansky poses these questions at the end of his article:
Given the extent of the involvement of the “Mukhabarat Amriki” in opposition activities, how is that US Intelligence did not know in advance about the opposition’s planned use of chemical weapons in Damascus?
And if they did know and warned the Obama White House, why then the sanctimonious rush to blame the Assad Administration?
Moreover, how can the Obama Administration continue to support and seek to empower the opposition which had just intentionally killed some 1,300 innocent civilians in order to provoke a US military intervention?