Nov 27 (3/3): Tulsi Gabbard & the Assad Apologists

OK, so there’s this weird fucked up Assad apologist movement going on that, just from the nature of it, the usual suspects involved, etc., is clearly coordinated, as I will go over below.

It’s been bugging me because I haven’t been able to figure out what it’s all about. But I think I have it now: Russia. Duh.

So anyway, here’s stupid Bow-Tie McGee.

This stuff has been kicking around and popping up from time to time, but appears to be cresting as a story again. The timing of the buzz about this stuff going on right now seems to be connected to stories circulating that international inspectors/UN have been pressured not to find chemical weapons use.

And then there are stories going around that the UN doctored reports to falsely show chemical weapons use.

DailyMail: New sexed-up dossier furore: Explosive leaked email claims that UN watchdog’s report into alleged poison gas attack by Assad was doctored – so was it to justify British and American missile strikes on Syria?

A leaked email last night dramatically indicated that the UN’s poison gas watchdog had butchered and censored a critical report on an alleged chemical attack in Syria. If substantiated, the revelations will be severely embarrassing for Britain, France and America, which launched a massive military strike in retaliation without waiting for proof that chemical weapons had actually been used.

The coverage, as expected, focuses on tiny details and is weird.

But a dissenting scientist, employed by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) says in a leaked email that investigations on the ground at Douma have produced no hard evidence that the alleged gas attack took place.

It appears that these facts were deliberately suppressed in published OPCW reports.

The email makes no attempt to suggest what did happen in Douma. It simply points out that hard evidence, gathered and examined by non-political scientists, does not support the officially endorsed version. And it claims that this resulted in the OPCW redacting the report to the extent that its conclusions were misrepresented.

I have no idea what political science has to do with this, by the way. I do know that this is related to Wikileaks bullshit.

So that appears to be why this is stirring now. And, similar to the DailyMail piece, SpectatorUSA is reporting that the US led missile strikes, which I had been under the impression had hit basically abandoned facilities, is the biggest scandal in the history of ever because they weren’t justified by proof of chemical weapons use by Assad.

SpectatorUSA: Trump’s Syria missile strike was a scandal

But almost nobody dares say so

The extensive look at detail and history and everything to prove that, basically, there is uncertainty in the world is kinda mind numbing. Which I think is the point. Get people to dial so far into the minutiae such that everything becomes confusing and uncertain and maybe people conclude there’s just no way to know.

To me, that usually suggests that there’s another there there that people are either trying to hide or trying to distract people from.

And here’s the key to why I believe that the above, i.e. that this story is an obfuscation and/or distraction, because, in the big picture, it just doesn’t matter.

To be clear, the use of chemical weapons is horrible. But Assad does lots and lots and lots of horrible things. Even if he didn’t use chemical weapons he’s still a war criminal.

For example, the use of barrel bombs in and of itself, even if used “properly,” borders on war crimes because they are inaccurate and kill relatively indiscriminately. Assad has been using them to terrorize civilian communities.

Putting shrapnel in them makes this atrocity significantly more obvious, and significantly worse.

Assad is a criminal even if he didn’t use gas.

But the fixation on the gas, especially so long in time after the attacks in question, appears to be part of a pattern of obfuscation. Take one contentious detail and make everything about that so that people lose sight of the larger picture—that’s a standard disinformation game plan, right? And the Spectator piece is nothing if not that.

And that’s even if we weren’t rounding up the usual band of suspects here.

So whether or not Assad gassed his people, that’s not what this is about.

Which means, if I am correct, we’re either being distracted from something worse than the incident in question, or something else entirely.

And then it occurred to me: Russia.

And then I flipped on my phone and this was literally right at the top of my Twitters.

So there’s been a lot of debate about Tulsi Gabbard and her visit with Assad, which she states was a fact finding mission for keeping the US out of foreign wars of regime change because we generally suck at it.

I’m not going to rehash the whole debate which might itself be another example of trying to bog people down in BS so they don’t understand what’s really going on. Suffice to say, Hilary Clinton called her a Russia asset—asset, not agent—and Gabbard demanded that Clinton not only apologize but proposed to write the apology for her.

Nothing says authentically sorry like reading the letter written by the person who feels wronged. Even approaching the requested apology in that manner raises an eyebrow. It makes me wonder how that person even thinks, because apologies are kinda bullshit unless they’re the truth, and that’s not how truth works.

Anyway:

I don’t know that Gabbard is an agent of Russia. In fact, I kinda doubt it.

But because of that, I have no fucking clue what Gabbard thinks she gets out of this or why she does what she does. I’ve heard her explanations and they simply don’t scan, especially since she must know a bit about what’s going on on a couple of levels.

The important distinction that is (frequently, lately) made is that an agent is actively and self-consciously working for and taking instructions from whomever they work for. An asset may not even be conscious that they are helping another entity, but they don’t have to be in order to be useful to such an entity, like, say, Russia; they simply need to behave in predictable ways that support the entity or which can be exploited.

And yet she still wants to pull all the US troops out. Now, her thing is non-intervention and trying not to fight the last war in order to prevent the next war. That’s a bit ironic considering she’s fighting with the candidate that lost in 2016, which has to be the dumbest last war she could be fighting right now, but I digress.

But the US intervention right now, no matter how it began, really isn’t about regime change with Assad, though the US brass probably wouldn’t shed a tear if the regime fell.

Even if you put aside the stated mission of fighting ISIS, though, it’s now apparent that, bracketing the marginal cost of targeted air strikes from planes already in northern Iraq to take the fight to ISIS, apparently something on the order of 300 men were holding the entire region together and preventing significant deaths, massive destruction, and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of people.

That’s some good fucking work.

If she were a Russian agent, I would understand her behavior; the only question would be why, e.g. blackmail, kompromat, money, extortion, pee tapes, etc. But it would make sense.

I have no idea what she would get out of behaving as an asset.

But whatever this clearly coordinated information movement going on is, its perpetrators want us to understand the irony of democrats turning on a dove like Tulsi!

Oh look. It’s the Spectator again. How so incredibly surprising.

Linking the defense to a swipe at partisan MSNBC in a way that suggests hypocrisy in the hopes of getting a kind of quasi-emotional is a nice touch.

I don’t know why the Spectator is carrying Russia’s water either. Or Tucker Carlson. Or any of the others.

But I don’t need to.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I get the non-intervention as a goal thing. I get thinking US troop draw down around the world might be a good thing. I get that maybe the US shouldn’t be the world’s policeman. I get that it’s expensive. I get that it’s dangerous to our people. I get that our historical track record on regime change and state building has been atrocious—which, by the way, is why G.W. Bush ran on being against it, a fact often forgotten.

I’m personally all over the map on a lot of these issues. But I get the arguments and find them, the well stated ones anyway, valid even when I disagree.

But our guys in northern Syria were doing a fucking bang-up job before they were so rudely interrupted. Frankly, in retrospect, what they now in retrospect were accomplishing is jaw dropping. And it was a mission they, and I like to think, we, could get behind.

So what the fuck?

I don’t know. But at the end of the day, we have the same weirdo cast of characters that carry water for Russia trying to get us to misunderstand the issue with Assad, drop us a red herring to chase down a rabbit hole, get bogged down in all the sundry details, and by the end, there’s a lot of uncertainty about a thing that, even if we were sure we understood it, ultimately misses the point.

Sure sounds like Russia.

So, why? I don’t know. But once we think in terms of Russia, that which was previously confusing totally makes sense.

Russia wants a return to Syria’s territorial integrity and, as part of that, for the SDF to join Assad.

The SDF don’t want to. As long as everyone thinks Assad is a war criminal, it’s going to be difficult to muster international pressure on the SDF to acquiesce to Russia’s plan.

Lavrov is the Russian Foreign Minister, by the way. As such, it probably bears repeating that, recalling for example the conspiracy shit they engage in, the Russian Foreign Minister’s Twitter account, despite of having a blue check, is itself, at it’s heart, a fucking troll account.

So, if Russia wants to pressure the SDF into joining Assad, they need to clean up Assad’s image. Because that’s what’s important here, right? The image. That’s where leverage comes from.

So I don’t know precisely what is going on behind the scenes. But I don’t need to know, not exactly anyway. The usual suspects are making noise in the usual way that obviously benefits Russia even if these people weren’t already suspected and/or known to be in the bag for Russia. I don’t know why so many people seem to be all about Russia lately, but it’s a thing and it’s unnerving and it’s bad.

This is infuriating.

This next one is a cheap shot but I don’t give a shit; I’m pissed.

Also, it’s funny as fuck. It might even even be a bit instructive. But even if it is, that’s so totally not why I’m posting this.

I still don’t get it. But I think I get enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: