This diary is in response to the commenters in my diary yesterday, who kept parroting the same unsubstantiated conclusions John Kerry made "connecting the dots" of the UN report using the same qualifiers Rumsfeld used to convince us of the "overwhelming evidence" of WMD in Iraq. They repeated over and over again the groundless mantra that the UN report contained "indisputable" evidence that Assad was behind the August 21 CW attack, when the UN report did not. No links. No blockquotes. Just strong language about "indisputable" and "overwhelming" evidence in the UN report. It reminds me of Galileo facing the Roman Inquisition who banned questioning the "indisputable" fact that the sun revolves around the earth back in 1616.
"Hey, Galileo, you conspiracy theorist crack pot knucklehead, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Therefore, the sun is moving, not the earth. The evidence is 'overwhelming.' "
Galileo shut his mouth for years before he dared publish his book, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, in 1632. I'm part Italian and a physicist. I'm sorry, but I was taught and raised to question things the PTB try to shove down my throat as "indisputable" fact. I tend not to believe bullies who resort to insults and threats to ban me instead of facts to make their points. I want well thought out respectful argumentation supported by links and quotes, which they have yet to produce. "Oh, read the report," they say, "it's loaded with evidence that indubitably points to Assad...the report doesn't say it outright to placate the Ruskies, but just connect the dots and voila, Bashar Al Assad's face will appear..."
I suggest they go back to kindergarten and take a refresher course in dot-to-dot primers before they fly off the handle crying CT. I was a whiz at dot-to-dot back in the day, but I remember kids whose drawings didn't look anything like the intended picture, but a jumbled up mess.
One commenter even said it was "time to kill this CT dead once and for all," and since some of them called me a CT, I guess my days may be numbered.
Pretty violent talk coming from a Democrat. Sounds more like the John McCain fan club. And a one, and a two, and a three: "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," oops Syria first, or any country on the PNAC hit list. B-b-b-but, I'm against the war. I only support to the hilt the war propaganda and will smite anyone who dares to question it with accusations of CT, which I will KILL DEAD ONCE AND FOR ALL."
UN Report on Syria Does Not Say What John Kerry Says It Said by Peter Van Buren, United States Foreign Service employee and author of We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.
John Kerry says it [the UN report] confirms that the Assad regime fired the gas rockets. Unfortunately, that is not what the actual report says. In a court, Kerry’s case might be seen as circumstantial at best, certainly not enough for a jury to return a guilty verdict in a murder trial.
the report simply does not say– anywhere– that the Syria Army, or the rebels, or anyone by name– used the weapons.
the UN report does not draw a conclusion of guilt– there’s no evidence on which to base such a conclusion.
And here is the real spoiler:
Page 22 of the report says:
As with other sites, the locations have been well-traveled by other individuals prior to the arrival of the [UN] Mission. Time spent on the sites was well-used but limited. During the time spent at these locations, individuals arrived carrying other suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated.
If the areas where the UN inspectors were investigating were "well traveled" and they actually saw individuals arriving "carrying suspected munitions indicating that such potential evidence is being moved and possibly manipulated," then to use Van Buren's excellent analogy and analysis, if this were a court case, the case would be thrown out of court. The crime scene would be considered contaminated, and there would be objections made by the defense attorney of evidence tampering.
These commenters don't blockquote the UN report they claim proves Assad crossed the red line set in the sand for a reason: the UN report doesn't prove the case for war any more than the snippets of snooped conversations taken out of context.