History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors, and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, says Scott Ritter, the famous former United Nations weapons inspector.
Writing in an opinion piece in the Huffington Post, Ritter—who was the most senior U.N. official to insist that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction prior to the U.S.-led invasion of that country—said that the fact that “Trump could be susceptible to such obvious manipulation is not surprising, given his predilection for counter-punching on Twitter for any perceived slight.”
However, Ritter continued, that Trump’s “national security team allowed him to be manipulated thus, and did nothing to sway Trump’s opinion or forestall action pending a thorough review of the facts, is scandalous.”
“History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their objectives.”
Ritter went on to point out the obvious inconsistencies in the media-propagated narrative surrounding the latest “chemical attack.”
“Mainstream American media outlets have willingly and openly embraced a narrative provided by Al Qaeda affiliates whose record of using chemical weapons in Syria and distorting and manufacturing ‘evidence’ to promote anti-Assad policies in the west, including regime change, is well documented,” Ritter wrote.
“These outlets have made a deliberate decision to endorse the view of Al Qaeda over a narrative provided by Russian and Syrian government authorities without any effort to fact check either position.
“These actions, however, do not seem to shock the conscience of the American public; when it comes to Syria, the mainstream American media and its audience has long ago ceded the narrative to Al Qaeda and other Islamist anti-regime elements.”
As a former weapons inspector, Ritter is well aware of the conditions following a chemical weapons attack, and he revealed that the “victims” paraded on TV and by Trump’s ambassador Nikki Haley to the U.N. were clearly fabricated:
“The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the ‘White Helmet’ personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a ‘pungent smelling’ chemical—again, Sarin is odorless.)”
Ritter pointed out that if weapons-grade chemicals had been used, so-called “rescue workers” would have needed protective clothing to prevent being “gassed” themselves.
Ritter concluded that the “winner in this sorry story is ISIS, which took advantage of the American strike against Al Shayrat to launch a major offensive against Syrian government forces around the city of Palmyra.”
The reason for this attack was the fact that the Al Shayrat air base had served as the principal Syrian air base for operations in the Palmyra region, and bombing that place was clearly intended to disrupt anti-ISIS operations—it had no other military value.
“The breakdown in relations between Russia and the United States means that, for the foreseeable future at least, the kind of coordination that had been taking place in the fight against ISIS is a thing of the past, a fact that can only bode well for the fighters of ISIS,” Ritter continued.
“For a man who placed so much emphasis on defeating ISIS, President Trump’s actions can only be viewed as a self-inflicted wound, a kind of circular firing squad that marks the actions of a Keystone Cop, and not the Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world.”
The only question Ritter did not address in his article is “why” Trump would have shifted his previously stated policy position of no intervention against the Syrian government so quickly.
Either Ritter is unaware of the controlling influence of the right-wing Jewish Lobby on Trump—an unlikely situation, giving his understanding of geopolitical realities—or he dare not mention it, because otherwise his article would never have seen the light of day in the controlled media.