POSTED RESPONSE TO A COLUMN IN THE NEW YORK TIMES
This is an absurd development.
Yesterday, in the morning, I read Mr Hagel saying that
United States' intelligence did not believe Syria had used chemical weapons.
Because Israel had already just claimed in public that Syria
had used such weapons, Mr Hagel was careful to state that the United States
used its own intelligence sources.
By that afternoon, we had this new story that indeed the
United States thought it likely (but had no hard evidence) that Syria had used
chemical weapons.
I know of no example from real life events more deserving of
the descriptive term "Orwellian."
We know from the inadvertently-overheard words of two
presidents not terribly long ago, the presidents of France and the United
States, talking in private that Mr Netanyahu is regarded by both of them as an
inveterate liar.
Mr Hagel, owing to his independence of mind regarding the
Mideast, fought quite a battle after the election to be confirmed for his
cabinet post.
Of course, his first words about chemical weapons contradicted
Mr Netanyahu.
Something happened in the course of one day to turn him
around.
Was it the same group which so opposed his nomination and
confirmation?
And that group is the special interest of American
apologists for Israel's excesses.
Actually, if anything, virtually the opposite is true. There
was a documented incident of the so-called rebels using some form of chemical.
From where did they get the material?
From Israel, in an effort to create a casus belli?
